Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

GUYANA (GIFT OF TABLE AND CHAIRS)

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that I will give directions for the presentation on behalf of your House of a gift of a Clerk's table and chairs and a chair for the Serjeant at Arms to the Guyana National Assembly and assuring me that you will make good the expenses attending the same.

It gave me the greatest pleasure to learn that your House desires to make such a presentation and I will gladly give directions for carrying your proposal into effect.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MID-GLAMORGAN WATER BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Aircraft Accidents (Publication of Information)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had with the West German and United States Governments on the publication of information on military aircraft crashes; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): None,Sir.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Member aware that the security arrangements regarding this information in the United States and West Germany are far less stringent than in this country? What value does he think the information that I have mentioned would be to a potential enemy? Is it not time that we reviewed these ridiculous secrecy arrangements in this country?

Mr. Reynolds: I do not regard them as ridiculous. It is not only a question of security and secrecy. This policy has operated since 1927. It has been reviewed from time to time and is being reviewed at the moment.

Naval Personnel (Local Overseas Allowance)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in reviewing the pay and allowances of Naval personnel serving in dollar areas, he will take early action to avoid hardship; and whether he will pay special attention to the cases of those who have their families with them and so are not necessarily covered by his formula that only three-quarters of two-thirds of all pay is spent abroad.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Dr. David Owen): I take it that the Question refers to the review of local overseas allowance now taking place.
My right hon. Friend, the Minister of Defence for Administration, explained during the defence debate on 5th March how interim rates of these allowances had been assessed to compensate for the devaluation of the pound.
The normal cycle of reviews has been speeded up and I am satisfied that there will be fair treatment for all Servicemen abroad, with retrospection for increases including, of course, those serving in dollar areas and those serving on accompanied tours of duty.

Mr. Digby: May I take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member on his appointment and of wishing him every good fortune in it? Is it not becoming increasingly difficult, with the constant defence cuts of this country, for our Service men abroad to compete with their opposite numbers, especially when they have had to suffer a pay decrease


of 6 per cent. at the same time as their American opposite numbers have had an increase of 6 per cent.?

Dr. Owen: I thank the hon. Member for his earlier remarks. The Government are very conscious of the need for speed in this review and we intend to introduce the results to the House as soon as possible.

Far East (Military Reinforcement Exercise)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state approximately the total cost of the military reinforcement exercise planned for the Far East in 1970 and for such exercises planned for subsequent years.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the details of the exercise to be held in South-East Asia before the evacuation of British forces, with the object of demonstrating the United Kingdom's capability for reinforcement.

The Secretary of State for Defence(Mr. Denis Healey): I am not yet in a position to add to my statement on the Five-Power Conference. The precise details of the exercise, including costs, will have to be worked out between the Governments of the five participating countries and this will naturally take some time.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister saying that he has accepted this very big reinforcement without counting the cost? Secondly, does he accept the view of The Times defence correspondent that this is a considerable modification of the position taken by the Government on I6th January, which most of us warmly welcomed?

Mr. Healey: On the second part of that supplementary question, I made it absolutely clear in January and in the defence debate that followed that we planned to train our defence forces regularly overseas after our withdrawal from east of Suez was complete. On the first part of the question, I am satisfied that since all forces participating in this exercise will be forces which would be training that year overseas in any case the incremental cost of their training in

the Far East will be small, but the advantages in carrying out a large-scale exercise of this nature will not only be substantial, operationally, but also of political importance, as I explained in the White Paper.

Mr. Ramsden: Will not the great problem in connection with these new ideas about reinforcement be the problem of acclimatisation? Exercises or no exercises, how do the Government propose to cope with that?

Mr. Healey: That is another matter. One of the great advantages in carrying out this type of exercise is that it enables us to learn more about dealing with the problems of acclimatisation and to some extent to acclimatise troops and to familiarise them with the circumstances in which they may have to operate.

N.A.T.O. (Brussels Conference)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Brussels conference with particular reference to the strength of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces on the continent of Europe.

Mr. Cronin: asked the the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Brussels conference and on the consideration given at that conference to the future strength of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces in Europe.

Mr. Healey: I assume that the questions refer to the Ministerial Meetings on 10th May, 1968. N.A.T.O. Defence Ministers reaffirmed the need for the Alliance to maintain an effective military capability and to assure the balance of forces between N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact in Europe and elsewhere. They adopted a series of force goals for the period 1969–73; these mark a further stage in the adaptation of N.A.T.O.'s force structure to the strategic concept of a balanced range of appropriate responses. Welcoming the fact that studies were now proceeding within N.A.T.O. on the subject of possible balanced force reductions, they agreed that the overall military capability of N.A.T.O. should not be reduced except as part of a pattern of mutual force reductions balanced in scope and timing. On other problems, N.A.T.O.


Defence Ministers adopted a concept for external reinforcement of the flanks to supplement local national forces in an emergency, and agreed that present circumstances did not justify the deployment of an anti-ballistic missile system in Europe.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Long Answers mean fewer Questions.

Mr. Allaun: But, at a time when America and Russia are beginning to talk sense and N.A.T.O. and Warsaw Pact troop reductions are at least being discussed, is it not crazy for Britain unilaterally to increase her commitment to N.A.T.O?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir, that is not the case at all. There are certain gaps in N.A.T.O.'s existing capability. If we want to negotiate effectively on force reductions, we must be certain that we are starting from a firm, secure base; one of the purposes of the increased force commitments made by Britain is to fill those gaps to provide a basis from which negotiations can sensibly begin.

Mr. Cronin: While I entirely approve in principle of my right hon. Friend's statement about our increased commitment to N.A.T.O. in Brussels, at the same time, would he make it clear that such increased commitment is not used as a reason in future years for reductions in United States commitments to N.A.T.O., which would have the effect of transferring the defence burden from the United States to our own unhappy shoulders?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir. The American Administration has always made it clear that one of the problems which they face in the Congress is the feeling of many American Parliamentarians that Europe is not pulling its weight in defence. The fact that Britain is now carrying a slightly larger share of the allied burden is helping the American Administration to resist pressure for unreasonable cuts in its own commitments, but I have made it clear to the Ministers in Brussels, and have said publicly, that our readiness to continue this form of commitment will depend on other members of the Alliance carrying their fair share of the burden.

Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of Mr. McNamara's

thesis that there is now a rough balance in conventional forces between N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact powers. As this appears to call in question the whole of the present N.A.T.O. strategy, will the Government give us a definitive explanation of their assessment of Mr. McNamara's assessment?

Mr. Healey: Mr. McNamara's assessment is not shared by any of the other N.A.T.O. members, nor by the military advisers in N.A.T.O., including the Commander-in-Chief, but we are, of course, in touch within the Alliance about some of the factors which Mr. McNamara has raised on this matter. We shall hope to reach an agreed view of the relative force capabilities on both sides in the near future.

Mr. Maudling: In view of the eminence of Mr. McNamara, and his information, will the Secretary of State explain to the House why and in what way the Government differ from his assessment?

Mr. Healey: To give a very simple example, simply to compare the total number of effectives on both sides is one way of assessing capability. Another is to find out what number of effectives on each side are actually fighting units and what their fire power is. Mr. McNamara's assessment does not, for example, allow for the very great superiority in tanks in the forces of the Warsaw Pact.

Armed Forces (Strength)

Mr. Ramsden: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is now the strength planned for each of the three Services in 1973.

Mr. Reynolds: I should not want to be precise at this stage for a breakdown between the three Services because this will depend on detailed decisions to be taken during the next few years. But our planning figures, and I would expect these to change in detail, are in round figures for the Royal Navy about 79,000, for the Army about 166,000 and for the R.A.F. about 96,000.

Mr. Ramsden: On the Army total, how many brigade groups available for deployment does this embrace? More generally, does not the introduction of the


latest Government White Paper make it clear that these target strengths are derived from the need to cut manpower for financial reasons and are not related to any true defence needs?

Mr. Reynolds: I am not prepared at this stage to give any further breakdown, but, as the White Papers and my right hon. Friend and others on this side have constantly explained, we are tailoring our future forces to the commitments and it is the commitments being reduced which allow us to reduce the number of men.

Vigilant

Mr. Ramsden: asked the Secretary of State for Defence why Vigilant has been withdrawn from infantry battalions in the British Army of the Rhine; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden): Vigilant was introduced to assess the suitability of a medium range anti-tank guided weapon portable by its crew. Its range fell short of the requirement for mechanised operations. However it is adequate for other operations and is therefore being used in non-mechanised battalions outside B.A.O.R. The exception is one battalion in B.A.O.R. which will continue to develop techniques there until a weapon with a longer range than Vigilant becomes available.

Mr. Ramsden: In view of what the hon. Gentleman said about deficiencies in range, is the Vigilant still being used mounted on the Ferrets, as announced in the 1967 White Paper? Can he assure us that the infantry battalions in B.A.O.R. from which it has been withdrawn will get the improved type of Mobat, the Conbat?

Mr. Boyden: Yes. On the second part of that question, there are likely to be developments, but there has been no decision whether to improve Vigilant, develop Swingfire or adopt a French system.

Scottish Regiments (Future)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what further representations he has had regarding

the future of Scottish regiments; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Boyden: My right hon. Friend and I have received three deputations since 3rd July.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Has the hon. Gentleman used the time since Monday to reflect on the tremendous strength of public feeling in Scotland, particularly as reflected in the House on Monday? In view of this, is he prepared to reconsider his decision, or is it absolutely final?

Mr. Boyden: The Ministry of Defence is given to much reflection. On the second part of the question, if the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, my right hon. Friend made a statement during the debate which offered the possibility of amalgamation or disbandment.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in common with many other Members for industrial constituencies, I have had no representations at all on this subject, and that among those who have feelings on it are many who would much prefer the disbandment of one regiment to the scrapping of two in the shape of amalgamation?

Mr. Boyden: I do not follow my hon. Friend's language in the second part of his question. As to representations, he has made representations to me in the corridor.

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make a statement on the future of the Scottish infantry regiments.

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, in view of the further representations he has received regarding the future of Scottish regiments, he will now make a statement about his plans in this respect.

Mr. Boyden: I have nothing to add to what I said in the debate on Monday.

Mr. Monro: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fury aroused in Scotland by the speech of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) about the Argylls on Monday? Will he come to the House and make a full statement completely refuting those unworthy allegations?

Mr. Boyden: My right hon. Friend is making a thorough and speedy investigation.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that, as Scotland has made its contribution to the defence cuts, there is a certain feeling that there is need for a Scottish contribution to the United Kingdom defence forces? Will he, therefore, assure us that Scottish regiments will play an important part in this new United Kingdom defence force?

Mr. Boyden: Indeed, yes, Sir.

Mr. Brewis: But surely there is no need to start an investigation over events which took place a year ago. As the officers and men of the Argylls cannot reply, and the hon. Gentleman is in a position to reply for them, will he categorically deny the statements made by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)?

Mr. Boyden: My right hon. Friend will make a statement before the Recess. These things happened some time ago, and it is necessary to consult all the parties engaged in this operation.

Mr. Dalyell: May I welcome the permission given by the Ministry of Defence to Colonel Mitchell to reply to Mr. Chapman Pincher? I warmly welcome this. But is my hon. Friend aware that these matters, like others in this field, should be determined by one criterion only—whether there is a credible operational requirement?

Mr. Boyden: Of course, that is one of the matters to be considered.

Royal Scots Greys

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make a statement on the future of the Royal Scots Greys.

Mr. Boyden: I have nothing to add to what I said in the debate on Monday.

Mr. Monro: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there will be grave concern in the Greys until they know that their future is assured? How soon can he put this regiment out of its misery?

Mr. Boyden: When full discussion and examination of the problem has taken place.

Royal Navy (Role)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now define the rôle of the Royal Navy in the 1970s.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the rôle of the Royal Navy in the 1970s.

Dr. David Owen: As announced in Cmnd. 3540, Britain's defence effort will in future be concentrated mainly in Europe and the North Atlantic. The main rôle of the Navy will be to play a leading part in the maritime defence of the Atlantic Alliance.

Mr. Wall: Is not the main rôle of the Navy to protect sea communications, without which this country cannot eat or trade? By depriving the Navy of its aircraft carriers, how can this possibly be carried out? Has not the Secretary of State made the surface Navy a coast defence force?

Dr. Owen: The main classes of ships announced in July last year, together with our growing force of nuclear fleet submarines, will strengthen our contribution to the maritime forces of N.A.T.O. and add significantly to the defence of the oceans.

Mr. Cronin: Bearing in mind the increasing evidence of the vulnerability of all surface ships to ship-to-ship missiles, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that his Department is giving sufficient attention to developing this capacity and also developing an effective defence against it?

Dr. Owen: As my hon. Friend knows, this has been the subject of a number of debates in the House. We believe that we can have an effective defence force by using helicopters, and this has been announced to the House.

Mr. Powell: Does the maritime defence take into account the possibility of prolonged operations at sea or not?

Dr. Owen: Yes. The Navy of the future will be able to operate at sea for a long time.

Mr. Maudling: The Under-Secretary said that the rôle of the Navy will be


mainly European and Atlantic. What rôle or capability do the Government propose for the Navy east of Suez and what air cover will be available for it in that area?

Dr. Owen: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have a commitment in, for instance, the Beira patrol. As was made clear in the 1966 White Paper, we would not expect to provide another country with military assistance, unless it was prepared to make the necessary facilities available for the support of our forces, and this could include shore facilities or airfields. This applies particularly east of Suez.

Mr. Rankin: How far will the American naval vessels now lying in Victoria Harbour, Hong Kong, and the aircraft carrier lying off the New Territories take up the rôle formerly occupied by British naval units in that part of the Far East?

Dr. Owen: I cannot see how they would be taking up our previous role, but we are in full consultation with our American allies.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Will the Undersecretary remember that the decision to plan a reduction to 79,000 in the Navy will bring our Royal Navy strength to the lowest point it has been since the end of Ramsay MacDonald's regime, and that nearly lost us the Second World War? On this occasion there are no reserve ships, whereas at that time there were many.

Dr. Owen: We are concentrating our forces in the European area and in the Atlantic area. The Government believe that this will make an effective contribution to the defence of this country.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Gi!es: Will the Minister arrange with the Secretary of State to make an early statement about this tremendous departure from the traditional rôle of the Royal Navy which for centuries has been to defend British trade worldwide and not just in the Atlantic?

Dr. Owen: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will have an opportunity in next week's debate to deploy his argument, but he is aware that the Government's policy is to concentrate our defence commitment in the European area.

[An HON. MEMBER: "Scuttle."] This in no sense represents a scuttle but is a realistic assessment of our capabilities.

B.A.O.R. (Strength)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the estimated total strength of the British Army of the Rhine in 1969, 1970 and 1971, respectively.

Mr. Boyden: Recruiting difficulties and the demands of other theatres have kept the posted strength of B.A.O.R. below its establishment of about 55,000 men. We intend to make good the shortfall as soon as possible.

Mr. Wall: Can the Under-Secretary assure the House that there will be no further reduction in B.A.O.R. in the next three years? Can he reassure the House by saying that there will be sufficient R.A.F. aircraft to give these soldiers adequate air cover? Is he aware that there is grave anxiety on this score?

Mr. Boyden: We shall do our best to bring B.A.O.R. up to strength.

Mr. Sheldon: Although it made sense to have a large force in Western Germany when there was a threat, even though it contributed very largely to the German balance of payments, does not my hon. Friend agree that it makes very little sense today when there is no immediate threat and when the balance of payments disadvantage is to ourselves?

Mr. Boyden: As has been stated on innumerable occasions, it is the intention of the Government to keep B.A.O.R. up to strength; and this is being catered for.

Royal Dockyards

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now commission a special inquiry into the possibility of extended civil production in Royal Navy dockyards.

Dr. David Owen: As the House knows a comprehensive dockyard review is at present under way. Its purpose is to ensure that the Royal Dockyards meet their primary task of servicing the Fleet as efficiently as possible. I intend looking at the feasibility of extending civil production in the yards when this review has been completed, but I must warn my


hon. Friend that there are formidable difficulties.

Mr. Judd: May I join those who have wished my hon. Friend well in his future responsibilities? Is he aware that in the present passive attitude in the dockyards towards civil contract work there is no one responsible for seeking civil contracts? Has he studied the successful diversification which has taken place in Malta in recent years, and will he take some action as soon as possible?

Dr. Owen: I am aware of both the facts which my hon. Friend mentions. I repeat that there are formidable objections to having extensive civil contract work carried out in Her Majesty's dockyards.

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now make a statement on the future of the Royal Navy dockyards.

Dr. David Owen: I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Judd: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this is very unsatisfactory, especially in view of the high hopes for a statement before the House went into recess? Is he aware of the strain which this doubt is putting on dockyard workers and their families? Can he tell us how soon we shall have a statement?

Dr. Owen: I can assure the House that no statement about the dockyard review will be made before the House reassembles. I am fully conscious of the need for urgency over this decision; but it affects many men and it is very important that the right decisions are made.

Dame Joan Vickers: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "urgency"? This has been going on for a considerable time and is causing much unnecessary disquiet in the dockyards. Does he mean two months or three months or what?

Dr. Owen: I am in no position to give an exact indication when we will be making a statement, but I assure the hon. Lady that it will be as soon as we can do so. There must be consultations with other Government Departments.

Medical Officers

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for Defence by what percentage the average earnings of general duty

medical officers in the Forces exceed the present average net earnings of general practitioners in the National Health Service.

Mr. Reynolds: I regret that it is not possible to make a meaningful comparison as the effect of the 1966 award on the relevant earnings of general practitioners is not yet known.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously going to stand there quite happily for another two years waiting to calculate this? Is he not aware that successive Secretaries of State for Defence have accepted that to compensate for the inconvenience to medical officers in the Services they should have incomes 15 per cent. ahead of those in the National Health Service? What is he going to do about it?

Mr. Reynolds: The hon. Gentleman has his supplementaries mixed up. That should be for the next Question. On this Question he has asked me to carry out a calculation, requiring some information. One set of figures I have available. The other set is not available. The hon. Gentleman will surely agree that if one has not got the figures one cannot do the calculation.

Sir M. Stoddart-Scott: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Secretary of State with a view to joining the three medical services of the three fighting forces into one, thus saving medical manpower and paying better salaries?

Mr. Reynolds: That is a completely different Question, but I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we are looking all the time at all parts of the Services to see where administrative savings can be made.

Mr. Ramsden: In view of the shortage of doctors in the Services, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake when he gets the Kindersley Report in the autumn to make proposals for restoring the differential which experience has shown is essential for recruiting doctors? Has he got his Department back on speaking terms with the B.M.A. yet?

Mr. Reynolds: The Kindersley Report does not cover Service doctors. They are, as with all other Service officers, now subject to the general report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. As


the right hon. Gentleman will remember, the Government have asked the Board to try to deal with this matter within the next 12 months—that is, from the date of its previous report. I am always prepared to talk to the B.M.A., provided that I can get its co-operation in the usual way.

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking concerning the morale of the medical branches of the Forces, and to halt the outflow of experienced medical officers.

Mr. Reynolds: The National Board for Prices and Incomes has been asked to complete a thorough-going review of doctors' pay within a year. I am also considering what other steps can be taken.

Mr. Goodhew: Is not the right hon. Gentleman deeply concerned at the figures he had to give me on 1st July concerning the premature retirements of medical officers, the number of short-service commissioned officers applying for permanent commissions, and the number of qualified doctors applying for direct entry into the Services? Does he intend to sit back for another year and allow the Services to fall back in the number of doctors they have?

Mr. Reynolds: Yes, Sir. No, Sir.

Sir T. Beamish: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the very great seriousness of this situation? Is it not about time that he recognised the fact that a G.P. in civil life can earn well over £3,000 a year, which is far in excess of what his military counterpart can earn?

Mr. Reynolds: As I explained in answer to the previous Question, there are no accurate figures available as yet as to the relevant effect on general practitioners of the Kindersley Report. I hope that there will be later in the year. That will be the time when the information will be available to the Board, which will then report to the Government. I am concerned about the position, as I hope I have proved.

Mr. Maudling: The Minister said that he was; considering taking action. How soon will he make a statement to the House about this action?

Mr. Reynolds: The main part of any action must be to get the conditions of

service of these men right; and I shall make a statement as soon as I can about anything that I am able to do in this direction.

Regiments (Amalgamation or Disbandment)

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest position concerning the amalgamation or disbandment of regiments.

Mr. Boyden: The position is set out in the White Paper which was published last Thursday.

Mr. Campbell: Will the Government look at this whole question again, both in the light of the debate last Monday and of the very serious recruiting problems now facing the Ministry of Defence?

Mr. Boyden: My right hon. Friend is not, of course, prepared to look at the whole question again, but he is certainly prepared to consider—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in his place when I mentioned this earlier—the question to which he referred in the debate on Monday; the amalgamation of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders with some other regiment if this should be the general wish.

Mr. William Hamilton: Would my hon. Friend give an assurance that when the cuts proposed in the recent White Paper are completed, the number of Scottish regiments which will lose their separate identity will be less than the number which lost their identity under Conservative administration?

Mr. Boyden: Yes, Sir.

Coastal Command (Search and Rescue Operations)

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the success of Coastal Command in finding a small rubber dinghy in the Atlantic and rescuing its occupant, and on the availability of aircraft for such purposes.

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost to public funds of mounting search and rescue operations necessitated by the transatlantic solo yacht


race; and what contribution has been offered by the sponsors of the race towards this cost.

Mr. Reynolds: Following reports on 18th June that M. de Kat was in difficulties, Shackletons from Ballykelly and Kinloss maintained a search until his dinghy was sighted late on 20th June. Sea rescue apparatus was dropped, the Norwegian ship "Jagona" was directed to the spot and a Shackleton remained on task till M. de Kat was rescued.
Subject to Service requirements and practicability, Shackletons are available to assist any vessel or individual in distress in waters surrounding the United Kingdom.
Although it would be possible to cost the flying statistically, the figure would be misleading since the effort involved was largely in substitution for normal operational training. In accordance with long-standing maritime tradition, no charge is made for assistance given when life may be in danger at sea.

Mr. Campbell: While Coastal Command is to be warmly congratulated on the success of this life-saving operation, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he does not consider it desirable that the organisers of such ocean races should arrange for prior basic vetting of the seaworthiness of vessels taking part? Would he also agree that there should be radar beacons in the life-dinghies?

Mr. Reynolds: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the work of Coastal Command. To answer the latter part of his supplementary question, any conditions that might govern ships going to sea—I refer to ships of any kind— would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, to whom he may care to address a Question.

Earl of Dalkeith: While applauding the Sunday Observer for its initiative in organising this event, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will look closely into the whole question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) of vetting vessels for seaworthiness, since this would be an important factor and might save a great deal of the taxpayers' money, and later, possibly, the risk to life?

Mr. Reynolds: I agree with the noble Lord about the importance of this and similar matters and assure him that we would be prepared to give advice. However, the responsibility is that of the President of the Board of Trade.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I, too, congratulate Coastal Command on this magnificent piece of seamanship and airmanship. Would the right hon. Gentleman say what part the French Government played in supplying aircraft or ships to rescue one of its own countrymen?

Mr. Reynolds: There was a total of 176 hours 44 minutes of flying time undertaken in this task by Coastal Command, and a total of seven sorties lasting 95 hours 54 minutes by other countries, two of which, totalling over 26 hours, were by the French Air Force.

White Paper

Mr.Barnett: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statementon the latest Defence White Paper.

Mr. Healey: If I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I hope to make such a statement at rather greater length than is appropriate at Question Time, in the debate before the Recess.

Mr. Barnett: Would my right hon. Friend clarify the position as shown by paragraph 3, which appears to be somewhat confusing in that the 1969–70 figures are shown as being eventually at the target figure of £2,140 million while the figure for 1972–73 is £2,014 million, all at 1968 prices, whereas this is shown to be equivalent to a reduction of £210 million to £260 million?

Mr. Healey: I think that my hon. Friend, who is a great financier, will see, if he compares the figures, that the target which we have set for 1972–73 is £240 million less than the figure for this year.

Mr. Ramsden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it might be of assistance if we arranged to have these figures circulated in terms of 1964 prices, which I believe have been the base figures hitherto taken for the purposes of comparison?

Mr. Healey: I have been repeatedly asked by hon. Gentlemen opposite to stop using 1964 prices. I consider it ungrateful, to say the least, in view of their past complaints for the hon. Gentleman now to make this request.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that the reason for the debate and the White Paper issued by my right hon. Friend is because of some special event on the Rhine or in N.A.T.O.? On the other hand, is the debate to be wide-ranging and will it cover the whole of our defence organisation?

Mr. Healey: I suggest, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, that the debate will cover all the matters recorded in the Supplementary Statement published a fortnight ago, which I strongly recommend my right hon. Friend to read.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that I have read the dccument and was merely asking for information so that I would know what the debate would be about?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman cannot compel the Minister to give information.

Mr. Crawshaw: While the build-up of our land forces in Europe is an indication that the Government at last appreciate that conventional war in Europe is a possibility, would my right hon. Friend explain how, after 1969—with the ending of the national service commitment and the ending of the Territorial Army ability— we will have this land force capability?

Mr. Healey: The Government have often made it clear—and this was the view of former Administrations—that we do not contemplate the possibility of prolonged large-scale operations in Europe. There is a possibility of prolonged small-scale or short large-scale operations, but not operations of the kind my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Younger: As it is clear from the White Paper that there is great concern about the slump in recruiting, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is foolish to select for disbandment the units best recruited?

Mr. Healey: This matter was fully dealt with by my right hon. Friend on Monday. Owing to the shortage of time,

he was not able to tell the House that the Argylls had to be made up by a platoon of the Black Watch because it was not up to strength when it was necessary for it to go to Aden.

Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations (Former Civilian Employees)

Sir T. Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will appoint an independent arbitrator to consider the claim of Mr. A. W. Tucker, a former employee of the Sussex Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association, to an award corresponding to that payable under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1965, in addition to the gratuity payable on termination of service, in view of the fact that neither Ministry of Labour Tribunals nor the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration have jurisdiction in this matter;

(2) if he will now introduce legislation to clarify the status of former civilian employees of the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations since they have been ruled outside the jurisdiction of Ministry of Labour Tribunals because the Associations are emanations of the Crown, and outside the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner because the Associations are not part of the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Reynolds: The answer in both cases is "No, Sir".

Sir T. Beamish: Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that these men, about 800 of them, have a serious grievance in that they feel that the Minister of Defence has acted as judge and jury in this matter? Is he aware that the refusal to appoint an independent arbitrator to clear up this highly complicated matter has accentuated these feelings of gross injustice?

Mr. Reynolds: I understand many of the feelings to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers. A number of hon. Members have written to my right hon. Friend and me on behalf of these men and there have been discussions about the matter in the House. I do not think it is necessary to go further into the matter.

Mr. Maudling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very serious matter indeed for the men concerned?


Is he determined to give nothing but wholly negative answers which are quite unsatisfactory?

Mr. Reynolds: The whole idea of the arrangement under the Redundancy Payments Act was to provide benefits to people who did not have them. These benefits do not apply to people who benefit by other arrangements.

Combat Aircraft (Future Requirements)

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the design and development of a supersonic vertical take-off and landing strike aircraft; and to what extent these plans run parallel with a known North Atlantic Treaty Organisation requirement.

Mr. Healey: We are discussing with some of our N.A.T.O. allies requirements for a future combat aircraft. But it is unlikely that this would combine supersonic and vertical, as distinct from short, take-off and landing characteristics.

Mr. Howarth: Cannot my right hon. Friend say at this stage whether the Harrier has already proved of value, having a vertical take-off and landing capability? Would it not be wise to incorporate this in a future advanced combat aircraft?

Mr. Healey: The view of all our N.A.T.O. allies and potential partners is that there is a great need for a short take-off and landing capability for a future combat aircraft, but the price, in terms of cost and performance, for a vertical take-off aircraft other than the Harrier is likely to be too high. However, we are considering certain modifications to the Harrier to improve its performance, and this could be relevant to a future combat aircraft.

Missile-Carrying Naval Helicopters

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what bad weather and night flying restrictions will be imposed on the new naval helicopters carrying air-to-surface missiles; and, in this respect, how their performance will compare with missile-carrying patrol boats.

Dr. David Owen: It will seldom be necessary to impose any restrictions because of weather conditions, since the new naval helicopters will be capable of day and night operations in all but the very worst weather. The helicopters will remain operationally effective well beyond the point at which the missile-firing patrol boat is likely to be an effective threat.

Mr. Howarth: This is an extension, I suppose, of the argument about whether these missiles should be carried on surface vessels or in helicopters. Does not my hon. Friend agree that helicopters are more limited by the weather than surface vessels, and does not this affect his argument?

Dr. Owen: No, Sir, I do not agree. The helicopter-borne attack system is in no way inferior to a system of comparable size mounted on a ship. In fact, the reverse is the case. It has a high flexibility and range.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Is the Minister saying that the advantages of helicopters will apply not only to missile-firing patrol boats but to larger missile-firing destroyers?

Dr. Owen: No, Sir. The missile-firing destroyers will be dealing with air defence. The helicopters will be able to deal with surface ships, including patrol boats.

Head of Defence Sales

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Government arms salesman was appointed; for what period; on what remuneration; what staff and premises he employs; what are his total annual sales; and what profit has been made up to the most recent convenient date.

Mr. Healey: The Head of Defence Sales was appointed on 16th May, 1966, for an initial period of two years at a salary of £8,000 a year. The total staff employed under the Head of Defence Sales are 197 civil servants and six Service officers. They occupy premises in three Government buildings in London, at an establishment in Derby and at three overseas posts. Total annual sales are running at over £150 million a year of which some two-thirds are made by


firms and about one-third by the Government. As regards sales made by the Government, we look to these to recover, in addition to our direct costs, a proportion of our expenditure on research and development and to make a contribution towards other fixed overheads.

Sir C. Osborne: Do I understand the profit to be £150 million a year?

Mr. Healey: No. I said "sales".

Sir C. Osborne: Then, before I ask a supplementary question, could I ask what was the profit made?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman will know very well that it is difficult to calculate profit when one is dealing with sales by private firms where one may not have full information of the profit that they have received.

Sir C. Osborne: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Emrys Hughes.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask my right hon. Friend, first, if this arms salesman is responsible for any sales to Nigeria, and, second, what justification the Government have for paying a man £8,000 a year to act as a commercial traveller and salesman for private arms interests?

Mr. Healey: We believe that it is important, both for financial and political reasons, for this country to play a part in providing arms and equipment for its friends in the world. One of the purposes of having a Head of Defence Sales is to enable us to do this, taking into account all the political factors which may be relevant to a possible sale.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Do not forget Nigeria.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Tom Price.

Mr. J. T. Price: Does the Minister of Defence recollect that, ever since the days of Sir Basil Zaharoff, this party has rightly condemned the employment of merchants of death? Many of us still condemn the practice and are very disturbed to see senior Ministers of the Crown associated with it.

Mr. Healey: I am aware of the strong feelings on this matter. I am also aware of the fact that hon. Members on both

sides protest very fiercely when a contract which might have gone to a British firm goes to a foreign one. If my hon. Friends will only talk to some of their supporters in their constituencies about the economic and technological consequences of renouncing all activity in this field, they might reflect a different view.

Mr. James Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer his hon. Friend's question about Nigeria?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir. I think that I am right in saying that the contracts with Nigeria were undertaken before the Head of Defence Sales was appointed.

Sir C. Osborne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was not allowed a supplementary question. I was merely asking for information to enable me to frame a supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his supplementary question.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have never questioned your Ruling, but my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) asked a Question of the Minister which the right hon. Gentleman specifically avoided. My hon. Friend then asked a supplementary question designed to get the right hon. Gentleman to answer the original Question, which was what profit has been made.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker, like the hon. and gallant Gentleman, was here when the exchange took place.

CS GAS

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what study he has made of the evidence which has been sent to him that the gas CS, originated at Porton, has proved to be lethal in use in Vietnam; and if he will make a statement on the result of this study.

Mr. Healey: I understand my hon. Friend is referring to a letter written by Dr. Steven Rose and published in the New Statesman of 21st June, 1968. CS gas was first discovered in the United States. It was developed by Porton to produce an agent for riot control which is less toxic and more effective than the traditional tear gas, CN. No CS is exported from this country to the United States.


While I am studying Dr. Rose's letter, I have found no evidence that CS as developed by Porton has been responsible for deaths in Vietnam.

Mr. Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Dr. Rose has offered to allow my right hon. Friend to sniff a quantity of CS gas recovered from Vietnam? Will he show his confidence in his Answer by accepting that offer?

Mr. Healey: I had an opportunity to sniff CS gas at Porton yesterday, and I am glad to say that I am here today.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman sincerely for the remarks he made yesterday about the work of the scientists at Porton?

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what regulations govern the supply of CS gas or devices containing CS gas by his Department to police forces or other organisations in this country.

Mr. Healey: Under Section 17 of the Firearms Act, 1937, no one other than a Crown Servant may possess a CS device without the written authority of the Defence Council. Police officers, being Crown servants for the purposes of the Act, do not require authority under the Act. Authority for the supply of CS devices to the police is a matter for the police authorities.

Mr. Macdonald: I am delighted to see that after sniffing this substance my right hon. Friend retains his usual rude health. However, in view of public uneasiness about the substance, will he undertake not to release supplies of it to the police or any possible civilian user?

Mr. Healey: Whether the police acquire supplies of this gas is a matter essentially for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and not for me. The only civilian users who have received supplies since this gas was developed in Britain have been the firm which manufactures devices for firing the gas and another firm which wished to import certain containers in order to test their suitability for the police.

Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not only in Vietnam but recently in Paris the use of this gas has had very detrimental effects on many

students? Dr. Rose has done great service by highlighting the dangers of this gas. In the interests of health, will not my right hon. Friend restrict its use to the absolute minimum?

Mr. Healey: I have made inquiries about the possible use of this gas in France. There is published evidence that the French police used CN gas, which is tear gas and which is more toxic than CS. Whether they used CS I have been unable to confirm so far. However, I can tell my hon. Friend and all other hon. Members that whereas in the seven years during which this gas has been in use in riots not one death has been confirmed, at least seven deaths have been confirmed from the use of its predecessor, tear gas. I think that on reflection my hon. Friend would agree that it was far more humane for British forces and police to be able to use this gas in the Hong Kong riots last year and in some of the civil disturbances in Aden than to be confined to the use of, for example, rifles and machine guns, as was the case at Amritsar, for example.

Armed Forces (Pay and Allowances)

Captain W. Elliot: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost of the recent 7 per cent. pay award to the services.

Mr. Reynolds: In the current financial year about £23 million in pay and about £4 million in allowances.

Armed Forces (Pensions)

Captain W. Elliot: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the total cost of granting a 7 per cent. increase in pensions to all Service pensioners over the age of 70 years.

Mr. Reynolds: Such an increase would cost about £1 million.

Captain Elliot: Would the Minister not agree that this latter sum is very small compared with the sum mentioned in reply to my earlier Question? If it was subtracted and given to those pensioners over 70, it would avoid this wide gap developing between the pensions of those retiring now and those who retired in earlier years. Will he convey these


figures to those responsible for fixing these matters?

Mr. Reynolds: While this sum is a comparatively small one compared with other figures, it is still very large. However, all public service pensioners are dealt with together. As for the general position, it is right that this group should remain in that of the public service pensioners, and I cannot add anything to what my hon. Friend said in the debate on 9th May.

Captain Elliot: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Equipment (Performance and Reliability)

Mr. Howie: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what action the Services are taking to keep industry informed of the performance and reliability of equipment in the service with a view to improving it.

The Minister of Defence for Equipment (Mr. John Morris): The Services fully appreciate the importance of feeding back promptly to industry information on the performance and reliability of equipment in service so that it may be improved; and so that new equipment under development and in production may benefit from experience in service. The best means of doing this are continually under review, in association with industry, and we are actively exploring the use of computers for processing the great volume of information involved. A very useful conference on the "Reliability of Service Equipment" was held in February this year and was attended by a wide cross-section of industry.

Mr. Howie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his terse reply to my Question. However, I thought that I had made reference to computers. Can he say what use is being made of computers in dealing with this information?

Mr. Morris: I think that I can help my hon. Friend. We already have a computer in use at Woolwich to process information on the performance and reliability of Army equipment. I have seen it for myself. This is now being programmed to provide output data which will be available to industry through

maintenance advisory groups, A similar service will be provided by a computer which is to be installed for the Air Force, and the Navy Department is making a study of the use of a computer for processing information of this kind.

University Research Departments Contracts (Official Secrets Act)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what obligations under the Official Secrets Act are placed upon the members of those university departments which are conducting defence research sponsored by his Department.

Mr. John Morris: The provisions in the Official Secrets Acts relating to contractors are of general application. The attention of those concerned is, however, drawn to the provisions of the Official Secrets Acts when the contract is classified or likely to lead to access to classified information, and they are asked to sign a declaration to the effect that their attention has been drawn to the Act and that they understand its effect. None of the current Ministry of Defence research contracts with university departments is classified, and in all such cases there is a recognition in the contract conditions that it is scientific practice to publish results freely.

Mr. Brooks: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he not agree that classified research is incompatible with academic freedom and should properly be kept to a minimum? Will he indicate the position of those representative of university departments who come into contact with those engaged on research projects let by the Ministry of Defence who may subsequently wish to publish the results of the joint research?

Mr. Morris: As I told my hon. Friend, none of the present contracts is classified. While we cannot waive any statutory obligation when there is classified information, we would wish generally to have as few restrictions as possible, consistent with national security, which would be liberally interpreted if there were any wish to publish.

Civil Projects (Military Personnel)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now make a statement about the co-operation


of military personnel in civil projects at home and abroad.

Mr. Boyden: As I said in answer to a Question on 12th June, consultations outside the Ministry of Defence are proceeding satisfactorily. I would not wish to go further until these consultations have been completed.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I welcome that Answer. However, what hopes has my hon. Friend of making an early statement on this subject, for there is a great deal of interest and a great deal of anxiety that there should be no unnecessary hold-up in this very exciting project?

Mr. Boyden: There is no unnecessary hold up and nobody should be anxious. I cannot make a statement before the Recess, but I expect that statement and the resulting action to be non-controversial and well received.

Mr. Ramsden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it was said, rather surprisingly, by the C.G.S. on television the other night that there were 300 contractors engaged in Scotland and a comparable number in England? Can he confirm that?

Mr. Boyden: It is not as many as 300, but a considerable number of activities of all sorts have been and are being undertaken. The difficulty is that they vary from very small to very big things. If the House will give me a little longer, I hope to be able to make a satisfactory statement.

Royal Air Force (Front-line Aircraft)

Mr. Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence on what number of front-line aircraft in 1973 he bases his estimate of Royal Air Force manpower in that year.

Mr. Reynolds: It is not the practice to disclose such information.

Mr. Powell: Have the Government formed any view of the approximate strength and composition of the Air Force in 1973? If so, why are they not prepared to give the House of Commons that general indication?

Mr. Reynolds: Of course the Government are aware of these figures, but we see no reason whatever, on security

grounds, for changing the policy, which has been adopted by all previous Governments, of not revealing the front line strength of the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, following the policy of the present and previous Governments, no racial discrimination will be involved in recruiting manpower to the Armed Forces?

Mr. Reynolds: I do not see the relevance of that question, even if my hon. Friend does, but I can definitely give that assurance.

Regular Infantry Battalions

Mr. Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence for how many regular infantry battalions in 1973 he is now planning.

Mr. Boyden: Forty-six.

Mr. Powell: Will the Government, if not now at any rate in the course of the forthcoming debate, indicate the line of reasoning by which they have arrived at 46 battalions as being the correct size for the British Army in 1973?

Mr. Boyden: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will, but I would have thought that it was very clear from the Defence Statement.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that Field Marshal Lord Montgomery has assessed a reasonable number of infantry as 150,000? Are not the Government arranging for 40,000 more? Is it not time that the number was reduced to the level suggested by Lord Montgomery?

Mr. Boyden: Lord Montgomery occasionally talks to me about these things; I must talk to him about this.

Mr. Ramsden: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake that in the forthcoming debate a statement will be made by the Government relating decisions on the strength of the Army and the Air Force to defence considerations and not purely financial considerations?

Mr. Boyden: Defence considerations and financial considerations are inextricably mixed. It is very difficult to get that lesson into hon. Members opposite.

Armed Forces (Retired Pay)

Mr. Worsley: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of serving pay is given as retired pay to members of the Armed Forces in the United Kingdom and other member countries of the Western European Union, respectively.

Mr. Reynolds: With permission, I will circulate some United Kingdom examples in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am making inquiries about the position in the other countries, and will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Worsley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he confinn that these figures will show that we treat our retired Servicemen worse than our allies treat theirs?

Mr. Reynolds: As I do not know the figures, I am writing to them to find out, and I cannot possibly confirm or deny it at this point.

The following is the information:

Pension as percentage of total emoluments Per cent.


Corporal (Non-tradesman)
…
55


Corporal (Technician)
…
51


WOI (Non-tradesman)
…
61


WOI (Technician)
…
56


Major
…
57


Colonel
…
60

These percentages represent the proportion of total emoluments represented by a full career pension plus the terminal grant expressed as an annual pension. Total emoluments are maximum basic pay, marriage allowance (at the "in-quarters" rate) and ration allowance.

Mr. Worsley: asked the Secretary of State for Defence in which member countries of the Western European Union is retired pay once awarded adjusted automatically for changes in serving pay.

Mr. Reynolds: In the United Kingdom a separate decision is required to increase retired pay. I am making inquiries about the position in the other countries and will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Worsley: As the right hon. Gentleman will find that in this respect, too, our Allies automatically adjust Service pensions., does he not think that the Government should do the same?

Mr. Reynolds: For many years, I believe since the First World War, Service pensioners have been dealt with as part of the whole problem of public service pensions. I believe that to be right.

Australia (Base Facilities)

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the negotiations with Australia for base facilities that he announced on 22nd February, 1966.

Mr. Healey: I have nothing to add to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) on 12th June.—[Vol. 766, c. 230–1.]

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would not be wise not to continue making statements of this sort to the House when he has to disagree with or contradict them a few months or a few years later. We were given to understand that he was considering a base in Australia. Apparently, that has now been abandoned, like every other plan which he has ever produced for our defence forces.

Mr. Healey: That is quite untrue. I have been considering this and I have been in consultation with the Australian Government about it. We know what the possibilities are and we know what possibilities do not exist. The Government took a historic decision in January to withdraw from bases in Singapore, Malaysia and the Persian Gulf at the end of 1971. I do not believe that it is consistent with that decision, or necessary to Britain's security and foreign policy, to build an alternative base in Australia.

Mr. Maudling: The Government have repeatedly said that they intend to maintan a defence capacity, or capability, east of Suez. How can that be done in naval terms, for example, without some base facilities?

Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman should know that overseas the Navy is largely dependent on afloat support facilities. There are facilities in Australia which the Royal Navy could use if it


wished to do so. I understood that the Question was concerned with the provision of permanent base facilities.

Far East (Equipment Supplies)

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are being made to stockpile spare aircraft engines, missiles and armaments so that the United Kingdom can honour the assurances given at the Kuala Lumpur Defence Conference.

Mr. Healey: I would refer the hon. Member to the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy 1968 which makes it clear that in general we do not intend to maintain stocks of operational equipment and supplies in the Far East after our withdrawal, although we may wish to hold small amounts of equipment there for training and exercise purposes.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Since we are to remain a member of S.E.A.T.O. even though we may not have any forces committed there, would it not be wise to retain some of the very expensive air-conditioned workshop and storage facilities in Singapore? It may be very desirable to all three Services if we have expensive exercises and we need heavy support which cannot be carried by air in an emergency.

Mr. Healey: To do such a thing would be totally inconsistent with the purposes of the change in our defence policy on which the Government have decided in the last 12 months. The maintenance of the sort of facilities to which the hon. Member refers has a multiplier effect in money spent and the number of men required. This is totally inconsistent with the Government's policies. If any of our allies wishes to maintain such facilities, to that extent our own capability to reinforce—if we judge it in our interests to do so—will be increased.

Sir T. Beamish: Are the Australian, New Zealand, Malaysian and Singapore Governments now all satisfied that we have the general capability to intervene in the Far East in the way in which the right hon. Gentleman claims we have?

Mr. Healey: Yes. This was one of the great successes of the Conference in Kuala Lumpur which I attended only the other day. I was disappointed to find

that the success of that Conference was greeted with chagrin on the benches opposite.

NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): Mr. Speaker, with permission I should like to make a statement about the reorganisation of the nuclear industry.
In the debate on 23rd May, I summarised the Government's objectives in seeking a reorganisation of the nuclear industry following the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on this subject.
I have now had the opportunity of considering the matter further and have had the advantage of hearing the results of the informal consultations conducted by the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation.
I have today written to the I.R.C. to invite it to help in the reorganisation of the industry and I am circulating the text of my letter in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The I.R.C. will, of course, be free to recommend to the Government such other measures as it considers advisable to reinforce the new structure. Until the new structure of the industry is fully operative, the Atomic Energy Authority will continue to meet all the obligations it has undertaken or offers to undertake. Arrangements will be made to ensure that thereafter commitments previously entered into will be fulfilled.
I am asking the I.R.C. to assist in the creation of two design and construction organisations to be established in place of the three commercial firms and the design teams working within the Atomic Energy Authority. We have in mind a close integration between these two organisations and the manufacturers of the main constituent elements of the nuclear "islands". The proposed two new companies would need to work in close conjunction with the highly successful fuel organisation set up by the A.E.A. which is already operating on a commercial basis.
The Government have decided that to make this co-operation more effective in the exploitation of reactor systems it would be advisable to establish the Authority's fuel business as a publicly-owned company under the Companies


Acts with the initial share capital wholly subscribed by the Government. In order to emphasise the interdependence of fuel and reactor design and supply, the Government intend that the fuel company should take up and hold a minority shareholding in each of the two design and construction organisations. Since the establishment of the fuel company will require legislation, I am proposing that initially the Government shareholding should be taken by the A.E.A.
The exploitation both at home and overseas of new reactor systems, as well as the A.G.R., would then primarily be the responsibility of the new companies, whose activities we would seek to concentrate geographically in such a way as to make the fullest use of the existing services and facilities built up by the A.E.A. at Risley.
In addition, when the proposed new industrial structure takes shape, the Government have in mind the establishment of an Atomic Energy Board on which the A.E.A., the design and construction companies, the fuel company and the generating boards would be represented. This Board would concern itself with research and development programming, export co-ordination and major policy matters. The two new design/construction organisations should be well able to stand up to international competition abroad and should be capable of a powerful effort in overseas markets.
As part of these arrangements, the Government will have to consider the necessity for some modification in the organisation of the A.E.A. in the light of the proposed legislation for the fuel company and the rearrangement of responsibilities for the exploitation of reactor systems.
The necessity for these new arrangements arises from the great success that the A.E.A. has achieved in developing commercial reactors. The reorganisation will be designed to secure that the most effective possible use should be made of this great national asset not only in support of the new organisation of the nuclear industry, but also in conjunction with the Government's own research establishments in the development of industrial technology.
These, then, are the lines along which we hope to see a reorganisation of the nuclear complex achieved. The industrial aspects of this are the most urgent, since it is the new design and construction organisations upon which the task of selling our reactor systems abroad will fall. They will need certainty for the future and I hope that we shall soon be able to reach an agreement, at least in principle, which will allow us to exploit our national research and development in atomic energy to the full.

Mr. David Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his decision to have two design and construction companies rather than one is in line with the minority Report of the Select Committee and will, therefore, be welcomed on this side of the House? Is he also aware that this is a very full statement, that much of the detail has yet to be filled in, and that it is very difficult at this stage for us to examine it closely? Will he undertake—as his implementation of the strategy in this statement matures—to give the House more detail and that we will have an opportunity to discuss it in detail across the Floor of the House?

Mr. Benn: The rôle of the fuel company in relation to the design and construction organisations meets the need which was dominant in the minds of the Select Committee in its considerations and its Report.
On the question of further reports to the House, I shall be guided by the progress made by the I.R.C. in talking to the industry, but there will be opportunities for further discussions and, as the hon. Member knows, there will be legislation later.

Dr. Ernest A. Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend for making this statement and indicating that action is being taken to deal with the nuclear power industry. I welcome that part of his statement dealing with the treatment of nuclear fuel, but can he explain why he has prevented the I.R.C. from considering the need for a single design and construction unit and has specifically asked for it to deal with two, since this, in effect, according to the argument of the major part of the Select Committee on Science and Technology Report, means


that we shall have three such organisations and not two?

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend is wrong on his last point. We shall have two, because the A.E.A. will be working in the two design and construction organisations. As for his first comment, he will recognise that there was also an error in that, because we asked I.R.C. first to go out and seek negotiations on the basis of a single design organisation. This did not prove to be a practicable way of doing it, and the fuel company will meet the need that the Select Committee brought forward.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the Minister confirm that these arrangements will not jeopardise in any way the negotiations entered into by A.P.C. and T.N.P.G. and their European counterparts for the formation of international consortia? Can he say whether it will now become possible for licences to be granted for S.G.H.W. technology? Will it be possible, at a later stage, to consider private participation in the fuel company?

Mr. Benn: We have not yet established a fuel company, but the objective is a publicly-owned company in which the initial shareholding will be by A.E.A. and subsequently a Government holding. Existing commitments will continue on the basis on which they have been entered into. I stress this in relation to A.E.A., but it applies to everybody. It follows from the reorganisation that the two design construction teams will have access to the technology developed by A.E.A.

Mr. Brian Parkyn: Will the Minister give I.R.C. a time limit by which it will have to have its plan completed? Has he given instructions to I.R.C. to see what can be done concerning the tremendous future of the H.T.R., and capitalising on it?

Mr. Benn: I do not think that it would be wise to give the I.R.C. a time limit because we are asking it to negotiate with the firms concerned, but since a great deal of work has been done on this matter I should expect that the basis of an agreement probably could very rapidly be found. A certain amount of work is going on in connection with the

H.T.R. We attach a lot of importance to the H.T.R., as is evidenced by our support for the Dragon project.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: In the time remaining to him, will the right hon. Gentleman seek to reduce rather than multiply the number of organisations which are known by their initials only?

Mr. Benn: That is a question for others than myself. But it is fairly well-established that the Atomic Energy Authority should be known as the A.E.A. If we have an Atomic Energy Board, it would be hard for me to lay down that it was not to be known as the A.E.B.

Mr. Maclennan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision about the fuel company is unlikely to be welcomed by the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, which has resisted this suggestion all along? Is he further aware that, as a result of his remarks about the geographical grouping of the new work at Risley, there is likely to be considerable concern at the A.E.A's establishment at Dounreay, whose continued existence is of such great importance to the area?

Mr. Benn: I do not think that my hon. Friend should anticipate difficulties. If we are to make a change of this kind, there are bound to be many people who will find that the situation alters for them. The object of this reduction is to exploit the highly successful work being done by the A.E.A. in nuclear research and development. I should hope that these changes could be carried through with the good will of all concerned. Dounreay, which is a very advanced fast reactor development, is likely to be the beginning of the very successful exploitation of that system in this country.

Mr. Neave: Is the Minister aware that the reorganisation of the A.E.A. will create considerable staffing problems? Is he further aware of the need for maximum consultation with the staff side and, in particular, for an early decision on the question of transferring pensions?

Mr. Benn: I recognise that there is a great deal more work to be done in this field. There will be the fullest possible consultation with the staff.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us who signed the


majority Report, after seven months' work, will take a great deal of convincing about his rejection of the single nuclear boiler company? May I ask him two specific questions? First, precisely what are the minority shareholdings? Secondly, what does he mean by "close integration"?

Mr. Benn: I recognised what my hon. Friend says about the case for the single design organisation. It was for that reason that we asked the I.R.C. to go for that first. But, in practice, if we are to have international links between the D.C. organisations and other companies abroad as a result of which we hope to sell our reactor systems, there is a case for not trying to merge into a monolithic organisation in this country. This was one of the dominant considerations in our minds. This is the answer to my hon. Friend's second question about the rôle of the fuel company's holding in the D.C. organisations. We recognised, the longer we thought about this, that it was the fuel which, in the long run, played the dominant rôle in shaping the technical standardisation required.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will this new structure, particularly the formation of the companies, in any way reduce the opportunities of hon. Members to obtain information about this subject in the House?

Mr. Benn: That is a technical question with which the House will be much concerned later, but it is a bit too early to say what the arrangements will be. They will be contained in legislation which will come forward later.

Mr. Atkinson: The answer which my right hon. Friend has just given would seem to mean that it is impossible for a Socialist structure in this country to cooperate with private interests in Europe. That is a view which would be rejected on this side of the House. Would my right hon. Friend accept that there will be great disappointment that, by choosing this course, he has accepted the Conservative proposals for the future of the industry and has rejected outright the advice given to him in a Motion, signed by 104 Members, to set up a single design authority?

Mr. Benn: I think that my hon. Friend is wrong in two respects. First, if we are

to sell our reactor systems abroad, some industrial collaboration is absolutely essential, and that is why we have maintained this option. Secondly, I am somewhat surprised that now that a new publicly-owned, science-based industry is to be built up on the basis of public research and development, which is what the fuel company will be, he should find this so unwelcome.

Mr. Evelyn King: Is it possible to infer from the Minister's statement that the possibility of a rundown in the level of employment at Winfith is more or less likely?

Mr. Benn: I think that it would be foolish of me to try to answer a question of that kind without proper consideration. The A.E.A.'s success in developing a number of reactor systems has now opened up the possibility of a new organisation geared to the idea of exploitation. I think that everybody has always recognised that as the success of the A.E.A. became greater the emphasis would tend to be on the exploitation side. The object of the new organisation which we hope to set up is to give this new emphasis real form.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the creation of a publicly-owned fuel company is entirely acceptable to hon. Members on this side of the House, but that the idea that private enterprise should control the activity of the other two companies is not so acceptable? Is he arguing that in order to collaborate with other countries, complete public ownership is not possible?

Mr. Benn: It is not part of my object to argue that at all, nor is the proposal which I put to the I.R.C. confined solely to the creation of a new publicly-owned fuel company. The point is that we should try to build mixed enterprise arrangements inside the two D.C. organisations. If my hon. Friend reads the statement carefully, he will see that this is a balanced proposal designed to get the best out of the A.E.A. combined with the greatest possible prospects of selling reactors abroad, which is the only way in which we shall get a return on the many hundreds of millions of pounds which we have spent on atomic energy research in the last few years.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Would the right hon. Gentleman remind his hon. Friends that this was not only the solution of the Conservative Party? The creation of two design companies was also the solution which was strongly recommended by the biggest customer—the Central Electricity Generating Board. Therefore, this will be very acceptable to the majority of people in this country.
Could the Minister be a little more forthcoming about the question put by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)—why it is necessary to inject public money into the two design and construction companies? They have operated perfectly satisfactorily up to now. It was not clear from the right hon. Gentleman's earlier reply why the Atomic Energy Authority should lend money to the new public fuel company to take a minority shareholding in these two private enterprise companies.

Mr. Benn: I would dispute what the hon. Gentleman says about the arrangements having worked very well up to now. If they had worked very well up to now, we should not have devoted two years to considering how to improve them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We have not sold a reactor abroad for some years, as the House knows very well.
On the second point, about why there should be a link between the fuel company and the two D.C. organisations, under the proposed reorganisation some of the A.E.A.'s staff and assets will be brought into the design and construction organisation in order to achieve the maximum concentration of effort and exploitation of the system.
That is one reason. The other reason is to meet the need which was very strongly pressed by the Select Committee that we want to get the maximum concentration of effort and the minimum of wasteful competition or design competition in a field in which this could be decisive in selling reactors abroad. This matter has been settled not on an ideological basis, but on the basis of finding a consensus of agreement between the public agencies involved and the companies which have to exploit them.

Mr. Rankin: Will the reorganisation of the industry and the creation of the new board be followed by a bigger intake of

technologists, scientists and engineers on the administrative side?

Mr. Benn: The object of the exercise is to change the emphasis from nuclear research and development, in which we have done very well, to the exploitation of our reactor systems. I should very much hope that more scientists and technologists working in the field would find themselves on the exploitation end, because it is here that we have so much more to do.

Mr. Fortescue: In view of the Government's recent decision, taken against the advice of every nuclear physicist in the country, to withdraw from the proposed European 300 GeV nuclear accelerator programme, how can the Minister be so confident in our long-term export potential for nuclear reactors?

Mr. Benn: I do not think that the two issues are connected. At no stage whatever was the 300 GeV accelerator brought forward on the basis that it contributed to the exploitation of the atomic reactor systems developed by the A.E.A.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order. In view of the long-term importance of the Minister's statement, may I ask the Leader of the House whether, before the Summer Recess, he can provide time for a debate?

Mr. Speaker: There is a stage in the House on Thursday afternoon when business questions may be asked.

Following is the letter from the Minister of Technology to Sir Frank Kearton, Chairman of I.R.C.:

I am writing to you, as Chairman, to ask whether the I.R.C. would be ready to help to carry through a reorganisation of the nuclear industry, which has now been under discussion for well over eighteen months.

In our earlier talks about this, you were kind enough to advise me personally from your own long experience of atomic energy matters, as a part-time member of the A.E.A. Board. Later you and your I.R.C. staff also took informal soundings from all the parties involved both on the recommendations of the Select Committee and on the development of their thinking in the light of the Committee's report. All this has been most helpful.

We have, of course, discussed this very fully with the A.E.A. throughout and have now had an opportunity of considering your suggestions in the context of the Government's objectives which I summarised in the House of Commons on May 23rd as follows:

First, to make the best possible use of all the existing resources in this field, cutting out overlapping and duplication, of which there manifestly is some;

Second, to allow those who have worked in the Atomic Energy Authority full scope for carrying their work forward into the exploitation and sale of the systems which they have developed;

Third, to get the maximum possible advantage of the technical standardisation, coupled with the. most effective design competition in engineering detail and construction method;

Fourth, to try to link and co-ordinate the efforts in such a way as to relate reactor systems to the fuel elements and reprocessing business at which the A.E.A. has excelled, both technically and commercially, through its fuel production group;

Fifth, to create an organisation which permits the sort of international industrial links which will be of critical importance in all sectors of advanced industry and not just in atomic energy;

Sixth, to do this with a special eye upon the future of the European nuclear industry in co-operation with our partners in Europe;

Seventh, to change the emphasis of our national effort in such a way as to increase it on the exploitation side and see that future nuclear research is guided and shaped more directly by the needs of the market at home and abroad;

Eighth, to establish a creative partnership between the public and private sectors as far as possible by reaching a consensus of agreement so as to allow all the other objectives I have described to be achieved.

With these in mind, I am writing to invite the I.R.C. to assist the industry in the creation of two design and construction organisations to be established in place of the three commercial firms and the design teams working within the Atomic Energy Authority. I have in mind a close integration between these two organisations and the manufacturers of the main constituent elements of nuclear "islands". The I.R.C. will, of course, be free to recommend to the Government such other measures as it considers advisable to reinforce the new structure of the industry. Until the new structure of the industry is fully operative, the Atomic Energy Authority will continue to meet all the obligations it has undertaken or offers to undertake. Arrangements will be made to ensure that thereafter commitments previously entered into will be fulfilled.

The proposed two new companies would need to work in close conjunction with the highly successful fuel organisation built up by the Atomic Energy Authority, which is already operating on a commercial basis. The Government have decided that to make this co-operation more effective in the exploitation of reactor systems it would be advisable to establish the Authority's fuel business as a publicly owned Company under the Com-

panies Acts, with the initial share capital wholly subscribed by the Government. In order to emphasise the inter-dependence of fuel and reactor design and supply, the Government intend that the fuel company should take up and hold a minority shareholding in each of the two new design and construction organisations.

The establishment of the fuel company will require legislation, and I would propose therefore that initially the Government shareholding should be taken by the A.E.A.

Exploitation both at home and overseas of the new reactor systems, as well as the A.G.R., would then primarily be the responsibility of the new companies. The design units of these two new firms, together with the fuel activities, should be, so far as is possible, concentrated geographically in such a way as to make the fullest use of the existing services and facilities built up by the A.E.A. at Risley.

When the proposed new industrial structure takes shape, the Government have it in mind to set up an Atomic Energy Board, including representatives of the A.E.A., the fuel company, the two new design and construction companies and the Generating Boards. This Board would concern itself with the composition and financing of R & D programmes (to which the two new design/construction companies, and the fuel company, would be expected to contribute), the co-ordination of activities in the export field and major matters of policy. These proposals have already been the subject of discussions between our respective officials. The two new design/construction organisations should be well able to stand up to international competition abroad and should be capable of a powerful effort in overseas markets.

The Government, as part of these arrangements, will have to consider the necessity for some modification in the organisation of the Atomic Energy Authority in the light of the proposed legislation for the fuel company and the re-arrangement of responsibilities for the exploitation of reactor systems. This reorganisation would be designed to secure that the most effective possible use should be made of this great national asset, not only in support of the new organisation of the nuclear industry, but also in conjunction with the Government's own research establishments in the development of industrial technology. The necessity for these new arrangements arises from the great success that A.E.A. has achieved in developing commercial reactor systems.

These then are the lines along which we hope to see a reorganisation of the nuclear complex achieved. The industrial aspects of this are the most urgent since it is the new design and construction organisations upon which the task of selling our reactor systems abroad will fall. They need certainty for the future and I hope that the I.R.C. will be able to achieve an agreement, at least in principle, as soon as possible.

MESSRS. GALLAHER LTD. (TAKE-OVER BID)

Mr. McMaster: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the American Tobacco Company's bid to purchase a controlling interest in Gallaher Ltd., the manner in which this bid has been conducted, the possible effect, if it is successful, on employment in Gallaher's factories, and the economic implications of the bid for our economy".
I submit that the matter is specific in that it relates to a particular attempt to gain a majority interest in a major British tobacco manufacturing company. It is urgent in that it relates to events which took place yesterday in London. It is important in that if the bid succeeds control over an old-established British company supplying one-third of the United Kingdom market with tobacco and cigarettes will pass into foreign hands.
I should like to make it clear that I do not in any way wish to criticise either the American Tobacco Company or Philip Morris for the interest which they are taking in the British tobacco industry. Indeed, I welcome—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not drift into the merits of what he wants to debate.

Mr. McMaster: I would simply argue that I welcome the fact that they deem it worth while to invest £65 million in Gallaher's. However, I suggest that the question which is of definite public concern is whether it is right that any overseas company should be allowed to purchase 50 per cent. of the equity of a leading British company and thus gain control over it and a commensurate share in its profits.
I also submit that it is a matter of concern because the offer is made with a paper currency—either dollars or Eurodollars—which is no longer backed by a guarantee of convertibility into gold at its ordinary market price and which may

well depreciate in value if the inflationary trends which have existed since the war continue, whereas the value of the assets which would be purchased has risen steadily.
The second point of concern is the manner in which the bid has been pursued in the City. It is important that the House should consider whether there has been a breach of the City's code relating to the conduct of take-over bids. It will not have escaped your notice, Mr. Speaker, that this has attracted much comment, both attacking and defending, in today's Press. I submit that this is a matter of urgent concern which should be debated by the House.
Concern has been expressed in the Belfast Press about the possible effects of the take-over on employment in Gallaher's main factories in Northern Ireland, where we already suffer serious unemployment problems. I do not myself believe that there are any grounds for those fears, but I submit that it is a further important aspect of the bid which deserves the attention of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was kind enough to give me notice this morning that be might ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, as he has done, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks requires urgent consideration, namely,
the American Tobacco Company's bid to purchase a controlling interest in Gallaher Ltd., the manner in which this bid has been conducted, the possible effect, if it is successful, that it may have on employment in Gallaher's factories, and the economic implications of the bid for our economy.
The House will remember that under the terms of the revised Standing Order No. 9, as agreed to on 14th November, 1967, Mr. Speaker is directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reasons for his decision.
In the light of the new conditions, I have to rule that the hon. Member's submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY

Mr. Dalyell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the future of the British nuclear power industry.
The matter is urgent because these decisions will soon become irreversible, it is dsfinite because of the Minister's statement this afternoon and it is important because it is crucial to the long-term fuel policy of the nation.

Mr. Speaker: Might I point out to the House that it is customary, if possible, for an hon. Member to give notice that he seeks to raise a matter under Standing Order No. 9. I gather, however, from the hon. Member's statement that it was not possible to do so and that it was not until he had heard the statement of the Minister this afternoon that he took the course that he has taken.
The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the future of the British nuclear power programme".
The House will remember the conditions under which I apply the revised Standing Order No. 9 and that I am to give no reason for my decision.
I have to rule that the hon. Member's submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order. I understand what you have said to the House, Mr. Speaker, about the desirability of giving notice to Mr. Speaker if it is the intention of an hon. Member to try to invoke the provisions of the Standing Order. Will you, however, stress to the House that there is no prejudice against an hon. Member seeking to follow that procedure after a statement has been made from the Government Front Bench? It would deprive us considerably of the value of

the Standing Order if it was not possible for hon. Members to raise the matter immediately following a statement which has been made from the Front Bench. Therefore, although I think that you said this, Mr. Speaker, it would be of great value to the House if you would stress it.

Mr. Speaker: I thought that the House would have heard that I said, in my own halting words, exactly what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has said so much more eloquently. There obviously may be occasions when what takes place in the House gives rise to a desire on the part of an hon. Member to seek to raise a matter under Standing Order No. 9. Obviously, that would not prejudice his chances.

Sir G. Nabarro: Further to the point of order. It will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that at 8 o'clock this morning, being the earliest time possible, I came to your office to table a Private Notice Question—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may inform the House that he came to my office to raise a Private Notice Question. He is not allowed in any way to indicate the nature of the Private Notice Question.

Sir G. Nabarro: Of course not, Mr, Speaker. If you had allowed me to complete my sentence, I would have related it to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). Only two recourses are available to private Members to raise matters of urgent public importance. The first is by Private Notice Question, the second is under Standing Order No. 9. I chose the first recourse—

Mr. Speaker: It will not be beyond the intelligence of the House that the hon. Member is indicating now the nature of the Private Notice Question he was seeking to raise this morning. He cannot do that.

Sir G. Nabarro: I will endeavour to complete what I have to put to you, Mr. Speaker, without reference to it. I shall allude only to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), as I am rising further to his point of order. The two matters are linked.
You cannot give your Ruling in the matter of a Private Notice Question, Mr. Speaker, till after midday. Would it not be possible, for the convenience of hon. Members faced with the dilemma that we do not know your decision until so late in the day, for the decision to be taken earlier in the day and for it to be posted in a place where we can all see it? It is not always possible for hon. Members who come here early in the morning to take your counsel and seek your advice about submitting a matter of urgent public importance and bringing that before the House to be waiting in the Lobbies till about one, two or three o'clock, awaiting your decision.
Would it not be possible for the decision to be posted in the Lobby earlier in the day, so that hon. Members would know what recourse they may have when dealing with an urgent matter of this sort?

Mr. Speaker: I am completely sympathetic with the point of order that the hon. Member has raised. The simple fact is that an application to submit a Private Notice Question may be made until 12 o'clock. It is not until 12 o'clock that Mr. Speaker is in a position to decide all the many factors which govern his admission or rejection of all the Private Notice Questions that have by then been submitted. I understand that, once Mr. Speaker has made his decision on any hon. Member's Private Notice Question, then as soon as possible the information goes to that hon. Member.
Following the line of the hon. Member's question, it would not be possible for Mr. Speaker, just after 8 o'clock, to reply to a submission of a Private Notice Question. The hon. Member must wait till 12 o'clock.

Sir G. Nabarro: Further to the point of order—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We are on a very important matter which affects every private Member. Is there any special sanctity about the hour of 12 midday? I am aware that it is unreasonable to ask Mr. Speaker to consider these matters at such an early hour as 8 o'clock in the morning. I am not asking for that. All I am asking is that the decision might be given at, perhaps, 10 o'clock. Could we not alter 12 midday to an earlier hour, which would help hon. Members faced with this dilemma?

Mr. Speaker: This would penalise hon. Members who have not the same early habits as the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and Mr. Speaker, who, like the hon. Member, is also on duty at 8 o'clock in the morning.

BILL PRESENTED

IMMIGRATION

Bill to regulate migration into the United Kingdom: to define rights of entry into and departure from the United Kingdom; to confer on certain persons a right to a passport; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Ronald Bell read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 197.]

DISMISSAL APPEALS BOARDS

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require that every worker shall be entitled to receive written notice of impending dismissal; to establish Dismissal Appeals Boards; and for connected purposes.
By way of explanation I should point out that I first attempted to bring in a Bill of this character in March of last year, but on that occasion it fell by the wayside due to lack of Parliamentary time and, of course, as a result of lack of Government support. At the time I was informed by the then Minister of Labour that he was awaiting the Report of his National Joint Advisory Council on dismissals, that the dismissals procedure fell within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations.
Since then, as the House will be aware, both those Reports have been published. The Ministry's Report points out that while appreciating the need for a dismissals procedure, it prefers meanwhile to encourage voluntary agreements. I agree that it was issued over 12 months ago, but it is fair, nevertheless, to ask how much longer can we wait and can the country afford such inertia.
After all, in Appendix 1, paragraph 6, it is stated:
It is estimated that between 333,000 and 500,000 dismissals per year result from misconduct.
These are formidable figures indeed, but it is fair to point out that they hide a great deal of potential injustice. However fair minded management may be, are they always necessarily right, and are their subordinates necessarily right, too? People build their lives round their jobs, and for them dismissal can be disaster. It often means the uprooting of homes and families, and sometimes, particularly for elderly people, it is a question of getting a job at all.
It is for this sort of reason that the Royal Commission, in paragraph 526, states:
We share in full the belief that the present situation is unsatisfactory.
It goes on to say, in paragraph 529, that

we believe it urgently necessary for workers to be given better protection against unfair dismissal.
The Bill I seek to bring in this afternoon is broadly in line with the majority conclusions of the Royal Commission. There are, nevertheless, one or two points on which I would take issue with the Royal Commission, first, when it says an employee who wishes to lodge a complaint against dismissal should do so within five days. I feel that this period should be longer. I would suggest 14 days. Often, a person who has been dismissed has a feeling of humiliation. The urge to fight back, so to speak, does not come till later. The Commission speaks of it being undesirable to deprive the employer of the right to dismiss without notice for misconduct. In serious cases, I would agree with this contention, but not normally, for this would reverse our normal concept of justice that a man is innocent till he is proved guilty.
To illustrate my point, take, for instance, a badly organised workplace which is, nevertheless, moving towards trade union organisation. Suppose the employer were to sack an activist. The trade union organisation would be liable to crumble; there would be reluctance on the part of the other employees to take office in that trade union. Therefore, I believe that a written notice should be issued, and that, in normal circumstances, the worker should remain in work, and, in serious cases, be regarded as under suspension.
The central theme of the Bill is, nevertheless, to establish dismissal appeals boards, or, as the Royal Commission referred to them, labour tribunals. Machinery of this character is already in existence as a result of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1965. They only need reconstituting, but the necessary priority would have to be given to the hearing of dismissal cases in view of their special urgency.
Some people would point to the cost of establishing such a procedure, but I would say that this would be minimal compared with the savings from better industrial relations. I agree there is a need to discourage frivolous or vexatious cases, but this would not be an insuperable problem.
There would be provision in the Bill for the exemption of suitable voluntary procedures, but I believe that legislation would be an incentive to employers and trade unions to set up suitable voluntary procedures. Voluntary agreements, for their effectiveness, largely rely on strong trade union organisation. In many establishments there is no trade union in existence, and in these the threat of the sack is often the main source of discipline. Even in companies with modern ideas this code of conduct still tends to apply to the non-manual white collar worker. The fact has also to be faced that there is no chance in the immediate future of voluntary methods succeeding in badly organised trades and industries involving millions of workers.
Statutory machinery can be justified then, first, if only because of lack of machinery and the inadequacy of what is already in existence, and, secondly, to encourage trade union organisation and the growth of collective bargaining on sound lines. There is the problem of conciliation when wrongful dismissal has been proved. Ideally, reinstatement is the answer but often a permanent rift may have been opened between an employer and an employee. An employee may not wish for reinstatement even though he has been unfairly treated. Again, he may have obtained another job. In cases of this sort we feel that compensation would be the best answer. Reinstatement and compensation can both be envisaged as remedies, depending upon individual circumstances which would be taken into consideration by the tribunals or boards.
Those, briefly, are the provisions provided for in the Bill, the implementation

of which I believe to be urgently necessary.
I speak not without personal experience of this matter. Before coming to the House I spent a quarter of a century in industry and, what is more, I participated in a number of strikes and even led a few. The Royal Commission, in paragraph 544, came to the conclusion:
… that the balance of advantage greatly favours the establishment of statutory machinery. Accordingly, we recommend early legislation to this end.
I agree with this contention.
The Labour Party, in its 1966 election manifesto, said this:
We shall recognise the right to trade union representation and ensure proper safeguards against arbitrary dismissal.
To my mind, the time for decision has arrived and, therefore, in seeking leave to introduce the Bill, I trust that I shall have the full support of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Roy Hughes, Mr. Arthur Probert, Mr. Clifford Williams, Mr. Maurice Edelman, Mr. William Wilson, Mr. Trevor Park, Mr. John Horner, Mr. Arthur Palmer, Mr. Leo Abse, Mr. Edwin Wainwright, Mr. John Ellis and Mr. Bert Hazell.

DISMISSAL APPEALS BOARDS BILL

Bill to require that every worker shall be entitled to receive written notice of impending dismissal; to establish Dismissal Appeals Boards; and for connected purposes; presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 189.]

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL WORK (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I have posted up, as is my custom, the Amendments which I have selected. It would help the Chair and the House if, at some time during the debate, the Chair could be told which of the many Government Amendments are to be grouped together.
We come first to new Clause No. 2, with which we are taking Government Amendment No. 191.

New Clause 2

AMENDMENT OF CHILDREN ACT 1958

The Children Act 1958 shall have effect subject to the amendments set out in Schedule (Amendment of Children Act 1958) to this Act. —[Mr. Ross.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I apologise to hon. Members for the belated appearance of the new Clause upon the Notice Paper It was a fairly natural human error, but the importance of the Clause and its length together with the Amendment must have caused considerable inconvenience and trouble to hon. Members.
The purpose of the new Clause and the associated Schedule is to close a gap which exists under present legislation in the arrangements to control places in which children are looked after temporarily by persons other than their parents or guardians. Part I of the Children Act 1958 gives local authorities a duty to supervise children not in the care of local authorities who are living away from their parents or guardians under privately made arrangements.
Briefly, notice must be given to the local authority by people who intend to take in for payment and for more than one month a child of school age or below. There is parallel provision in the Nurseries and Child-minders Regula-

tion Act 1948 in respect of children who are taken in during the daytime only or for short periods not exceeding six days. So there is a gap between the 28 day minimum period of the one and the six day maximum of the other.
Apart from this, there has been considerable public concern, I admit more so in England and Wales than in Scotland, about the evasion of the provisions of the two Acts, and the consequent danger to children placed with unregistered and unsupervised minders and foster parents where parents have found it impossible to make other arrangements for their children. The opportunity has been taken of the Health Services and Public Health Bill to strengthen the provisions of the Nurseries and Child-minders Regulation Act 1948. The changes apply to Scotland, and responsibility for the administration of the amended Act will be taken over from the Health Authorities where it lies now by our new social work departments.
On the children protection side, the Minister of State, Home Office, Lord Stonham, announced in another place on 14th May that it is hoped to introduce legislation to strengthen the Children Act 1958. That legislation will introduce some important changes of policy, and may also carry out a great many detailed changes to improve the administration of the Act.
We have considered what should be done in Scotland. I think that it is desirable to introduce the policy changes, but, as the difficulties with the present Acts are not so great as they are in England, there is not the same need to carry out the more detailed amendments. At the same time, the introduction of the social work departments will mean that the same local authority department will in Scotland be responsible for working both codes, and there may well be advantage in letting this happen for a year or two to see how best the two codes can be improved and assimilated in Scottish conditions. We have, therefore, decided that the best course is to take advantage of the opportunity given by the Social Work (Scotland) Bill to introduce the main changes and to allow our authorities to have experience of working both codes through one department before deciding what further detailed changes should be introduced.
The changes are set out in the new Schedule. They are, first, the Amendment of Section 2(1), which closes the gap that I have already mentioned. It extends the scope of the Children Act 1958 to cover periods of care exceeding six days. It also extends it to cases where there is no question of reward. The interpretation of the words "for reward" has given rise to difficulty in proving whether it is "for reward" or not, thereby allowing people to opt out of the conditions and regulations for the safety and well being of children. Furthermore, fostering without reward has been exempt from supervision in cases where this was clearly desirable. The Amendment, therefore, will mean that foster parents will in future also be subject to supervision if they take care of children without payment, or contend that they do so.
It is appreciated that these changes could add considerably to the work of local authorities, and the new Section 1A is intended to relieve this. At present, Section 1 of the 1958 Act puts upon local authorities a duty to arrange for all foster children within the meaning of the Act to be visited from time to time by their officers. This is unnecessarily and may even be undesirably inflexible, since a local authority may be well aware that individual foster parents provide good care and need no regular advice or guidance. The new Clause 1A substitutes, therefore, a general duty on the local authority to secure the welfare of children within its area who are foster children within the meaning of the Act and empowers the local authority to arrange for the children to be visited and advice to be given if the local authority considers this necessary or expedient.
It is recognised that there may be a number of cases where parents make arrangements for their children and where there is no call for local authority supervision. A simple example is that of a child who may be looked after by lelatives or neighbours during school holidays. New paragraph (f) of Clause 2(3) is intended to exempt such cases from the need to notify the local authority. Its terms ensure that no one who takes in children regularly and continuously escapes notification, however. Clauses 2(6) and 2(7) are being omitted because there will be no requirement for

a definition of "reward", although the term must be retained in Clause 9 for the purposes of the Life Assurance Act, 1774.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: The Secretary of State was good enough to apologise because the new Clause and Amendment No. 191 are starred, which means that they appeared on the Notice Paper for the first time today. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that my hon. Friends and I have not had time to consider them adequately.
In passing, I must say that I am surprised that it is only at this last moment that the Government should have found the need for the new Clause and Amendment No. 191. They are of substantial consequence, as the right hon. Gentleman has said. We have previously protested about last-minute Amendments being put down. In Committee, on 26th June, there were 17 starred Amendments on the Notice Paper; on the 23rd Tune, there were 23. This Bill received its Second Reading in another place in March and went through all its stages there before getting its Second Reading here and being in Committee for 13 sittings. It is, therefore, all the more surprising that we should still be confronted with starred Amendments to it.
Having said that by way of protest, I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has apologised to the House for this oversight and I do not propose to make any more of it than that. I accept the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman of the purpose of the new Clause and the Amendment. I believe that they are necessary even at this late stage and that, without them, there would almost certainly have been need for amending legislation later on. I hope that the House will accept the new Clause and Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

FINGERPRINTING OF CHILDREN

Children coming within the provisions of sections 31 and 32(2)(g) of this Act shall not be fingerprinted excepting in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State and approved by both Houses of Parliament. —[Mr. Willis.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. George Willis: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I raised the question of the fingerprinting of children on Second Reading and in Committee and made clear my dissatisfaction with the present position. My dissatisfaction is now accentuated in view of the purpose of the Bill because, as I hope to show, the present position is in conflict with Part III unless we do something about it.
The present position in Scotland is that the police have overall powers to take fingerprints without consent and without warrant from a person arrested and in custody following arrest. This applies to children, so that any child from the age of criminal consent—8—can be fingerprinted and photographed. That surely runs contrary to Part III.
I do not like the present position in any case, but I know that there is strong feeling among the police about their possession of these powers. While I would not wish to weaken the powers of the police, we must consider this question in the light of the possible effect upon the children themselves. The effects on a child of 9, 10, or 11 years of age of being taken to a police station, fingerprinted with a couple of burly constables beside him, and then photographed, is not likely to be beneficial, particularly when some of the offences for which this might be done could probably be better rewarded by his father simply slapping the boy's bottom.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said in Committee that this was not the Bill to deal with that situation, but I submit that this is not so. Part III of the Bill sets out to make a fundamental change in our approach to offences by children and is endeavouring to remove them from the atmosphere of crime. In-deed, in Committee my hon. Friend went to great pains never to use the words "charge", "courts" or "sentence". The boy would be reported and asked to appear not before a court but a panel and he would not be sentenced or anything like that.
All this was because, as my hon. Friend said, we wanted to create a different atmosphere for the child offender —an atmosphere in which he could be helped, assisted, corrected, although, if

necessary, if the offence was very serious, he could be sent to the Sheriff court. I am dealing primarily at this point with offences going before the children's panel, however.
That was the object of the Kilbrandon proposals. It is the whole object of Part III. The present position is that a child charged with an offence or about to be reported for an offence can be hauled off to the police station, fingerprinted and photographed. Are we to retain that system, but then tell the child, "You will go before the children's panel, where you must not be dealt with as a criminal or as an offender but as a child in need of assistance."? Part III is headed:
Children in Need of Compulsory Measures of Care".
There is nothing there about children of a criminal character.
The fingerprinting system makes nonsense of Part III of the Bill unless we do something about it. I appreciate that some people argue that everyone should be fingerprinted and that this would assist in the identification of people killed or severely injured in accidents—motor accidents, in particular. I realise that it would also be useful for a number of other reasons. But I do not necessarily hold the view that everyone should be fingerprinted. If we were all fingerprinted, there would be no difficulty in this case, of course.
But at present fingerprinting is indelibly associated in everyone's mind with criminality. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that, after putting a child through the process of fingerprinting and photographing, we should say to him, "We shall not treat you further in this fashion. We do not want any stigma of being associated with crime to attach to you or to affect the way in which your case is dealt with."
4.30 p.m.
I proposed an Amendment in Committee, which was not accepted, which would have taken children under 12 out of this provision. The purpose of my Amendment was that children under 12 should not be fingerprinted and that children between the ages of 12 and 16 should only be fingerprinted with the permission of the court or the children's panel. Even so, I do not think that this would be quite so easy as the different situation in England where children


under 14 are not fingerprinted, except in special circumstances. Children between the ages of 14 and 16 are fingerprinted only with the consent and sanction of the court. This seemed to be one way out.
Another way out would have been that the child should not be fingerprinted unless his case went to the sheriff, which would be an indication that it was indeed serious and the kind of case for which fingerprints might provide a useful record.
New Clause 1 leaves it to the Secretary of State to go into the matter and draw up regulations which should be approved by the House. It has a degree of flexibility about it which would enable regulations to be made in accordance with generally held views at particular times. We would also have some indication of what the practice would be when the Bill became law.
This is a fairly modest, but necessary, request for something to be done. In my view, Part III in many cases is a nonsense unless we do something about it. I do not think that my right hon. Friend wants to pass legislation which is a nonsense. I believe that my right hon. Friend wants to make a good job of this and wants to take the steps necessary to satisfy the wishes of all who were in general favour of the underlying purpose of the recommendations of the Kilbrandon Committee.
I do not wish to speak at any greater length on this matter—I said much more about it in Committee—but I believe that it is important and that something is necessary. It is not good enough to be given the reply that my hon. Friend gave me in Committee, that, of course, we will consult with the police and others concerned. Whatever the consultations might mean, there is no legal backing for what might be suggested. I understand that the legal position—and probably the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) could either confirm or deny this—would still be that a chief constable, if he thought it necessary, could carry on the existing practice. That is in spite of consultations and agreements.
This is why I believe it is necessary that we should lay down something in the form of regulations. We cannot put it in the Bill at this late stage, but it

can be done by regulations. This would give the necessary power to the Secretary of State to see that the wishes of people concerned with this practice were carried out.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I did not have the pleasure and privilege of serving on the important Committee dealing with this Bill although, like many others who were not on the Commitee, I have read some of the Committee reports.
I should like to mention two brief points on this new Clause, which has been so eloquently moved by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis).
Having had a brief look at the Bill, the first point is that, in seeking to exclude children, this would, under Part III of the Bill, mean children up to the age of 16. This would be a considerable exemption from the powers we are talking about.

Mr. Willis: No. All I am suggesting is that the Secretary of State should have power to make regulations about this matter. The Regulations need not necessarily exclude children, say, between 14 and 16, or between 12 and 16. It depends what the regulations are.

Mr. Taylor: I read the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about children of the age of 12. The question of age is critical. We know that a young lady may not purchase cigarettes until she is 16 and cannot buy a bottle of stout until she is 18, although by that time she may be a wife and mother. Certainly, age limits are difficult to justify in present circumstances.
We must bear in mind that the usual and normal purpose of fingerprinting is to detect and solve crime. The right hon. Gentlemen could have made a better case if there were any evidence of abuse of these powers or of their use on a widespread and general scale. However, no evidence has been put forward along these lines, so far as I am aware.
We must bear in mind that, although many of the points are significant, expensive crimes are often committed by young children of 9, 10, 11 and so on. The fingerprinting of young people in such circumstances could lead to the solution of a crime at a much earlier stage, save a great deal of public expense, and also


save unnecessary inquiries which might cause distress to other people.
In these circumstances, unless there is any evidence of abuse of the existing powers or of their widespread use—and this is certainly not my information— the Government should look carefully at the whole matter before accepting the new Clause. The powers are simply used to solve crimes. This can often lead to a great saving of public expense and prevent distress being caused to a large number of people. I do not think that any evidence has been advanced on these angles.
I hope that the Government will seriously consider the new Clause before accepting it.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I do not wish to detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I would like to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis).
This subject was given an airing in Committee. The Under-Secretary relied on a variety of arguments which I found, and still find on further examination, highly unsatisfactory. First, my hon. Friend said that there was no demand and there had been no public outcry or pressure for a change in this sphere. It was then pointed out by myself and by various other hon. Members that there had been no outcry in the general public sense for Part III. If we were to wait until there was a general public demand for social reform we would be going without a large number of valuable changes for a long time.
My hon. Friend then said—and here he had support from the Opposition Front Bench—that this was the wrong Bill; that we should wait for the Criminal Justice Bill. As a back bencher, I found this kind of argument particularly unpleasant. It is the kind of argument which Front Benchers fall back upon in the last extremity. It is an argument which can be, and is, freely used either way. It becomes a convention, a parliamentary smokescreen for refusing to take action.
It is not so long ago that another Undersecretary of State for Scotland, when considering security of tenure in the Agriculture Bill, was arguing strongly in the face of attacks from the Opposition, that

if an Amendment fell within the terms of the long title the Government were entitled to push it through and that, with the pressure upon legislative time, it would be wrong to turn up the chance.
I think that if we have a Measure which, on merit, deserves action, we should not be put off by the kind of argument that in some way it is not suitable and that we should wait for a hypothetical bill which may or may not be coming up in the next year, the year after, or the year after that.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East that the present practice is against the spirit of Part III. I have in mind the arguments which were constantly used by the Undersecretary of State on Second Reading and in Committee. I realise that the original Amendment put down in Committee by my right hon. Friend was almost certainly too hard and too inflexible and no doubt was not suitable for a series of technical reasons.
Some of the difficulties have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). But I refuse to accept that it is beyond the ingenuity of the Scottish Office, if it accepts the general case that the unregulated fingerprinting of juveniles is undesirable, to produce a reasonable and workable scheme which would in practice overcome difficulties of the sort which would in practice overcome difficulties of the sort which the hon. Member for Cathcart has in mind.
The present practice is unsatisfactory. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State said that one of the difficulties in the situation was that, since there was no statutory provision, he was unable to say
with absolute authority what is the practice in different parts of Scotland".
He said that there were wide variations, his information being
that there are one or two police forces in Scotland which rarely take fingerprints of juveniles, while others make considerable use of this provision.
But it was little consolation to hear from my hon. Friend, a moment or two later, that he was
simply stating the position as it is. I understand that it is very rare to take fingerprints of children below the age of 10… "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 2nd July, 1968; c. 587.]


The Minister should be in a position to say authoritatively what the position is. If there are the wide variations of which he spoke, the matter is not, as the hon. Member for Cathcart suggested, such that in some areas, after serious crimes occur, fingerprints are taken while in other circumstances they are not. Obviously, the general practice varies from area to area, and this is not a situation which ought to be tolerated or allowed to continue.
I believe that the Minister is sympathetic. He made clear in Committee that he sympathised with some of the points put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East, and he said:
I undertake to look at this again before Report. However, I should be misleading the Committee if I gave the impression that I felt that it was possible on Report to provide Amendments which would place all these complicated matters on a statutory basis. I honestly do not believe that that could possibly be done in the time available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 2nd July, 1968; c. 595.]
I am the first to accept that it would be unreasonable to prepare hard and fast Amendments in the time available, but the new Clause merely gives power for the making of regulations for the approval of Parliament at a future date. This overcomes the difficulty to which my hon. Friend referred. If it be a real difficulty, and if the Minister is sympathetic towards the general intention, as he suggested, there need be no barrier against accepting the new Clause at this stage.

Mr. John Robertson: I support the new Clause and the argument advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). So long as we are to have children's panels of the kind envisaged under the Bill, normal police procedures in this respect are inappropriate. We had a long argument about it in Committee, and I took the view that there should be some revision in the children's panel procedure.
I should have preferred that a charge be made, but under the procedure envisaged no charge will be laid. Thus, there will be informal proceedings, with people able to give evidence against themselves without their realising that they are so doing. I did not like that procedure, but, so long as it is there, the

normal police procedures in dealing with children must be changed in line with the ideas running behind Part III.
As my right hon. Friend said, fingerprinting has always been associated with the concept of criminality. In this context, it is abhorrent and so contrary to the other ideas embodied in the Bill that the Government should have no difficulty in accepting the spirit of the new Clause. Even with the alteration proposed by my right hon. Friend in moving the Clause, there might still be some anomalies and it might not be possible to lay down a procedure which did precisely what we wanted, but it would be a good step in the right direction.
It is a great pity that the Government did not themselves accept the principle and bring forward an appropriate Amendment in Committee to cover the whole situation. However, the new Clause would give the Secretary of State sufficient power to deal adequately with the situation.
I am sure that it would be the wish of all right hon. and hon. Members— certainly all who were members of the Committee—that the Secretary of State should accept the Clause. It follows the spirit of the Bill precisely, and, if he is not prepared to accept it, he will, I suggest, make his Bill a nonsense.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: I do not see how the Government could accept the new Clause as it stands. As is obvious from what has been said so far, this is a difficult problem which involves striking a balance between individual interests and the public interest, and I am by no means sure that it would be right to accept this proposal for a change at such a late stage in legislation. For one thing, the Clause refers only to fingerprinting, but a great deal of evidence in criminal cases relates not to fingerprinting, but to palmprinting and foot-printing. There was a recent decision in Scotland sustaining a conviction on the basis of identification of teeth marks.
If we are to make a change in the law here—it would be a new provision because, as the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) pointed out, the matter is governed entirely by common law at present—it would have to be carefully thought out. I am not at all sure


that this would not have been an appropriate Measure for a change to be made, if a change were deemed advisable. The Bill deals with children, and there is no doubt that the interviewing of children by the police could relevantly nave formed part of its subject matter.
I hope that the Government will not accept the Clause as it stands, but, arising out of something said by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), I put to the Government that one is sometimes not altogether happy about the police practice, if it be a practice, of taking fingerprints, footprints or other impressions from children when those children are not under suspicion but are invited to cooperate with the police in that way, perhaps not always being warned that they are under no obligation to do so. I had experience of that in a case only last week, and I think that there is here a question which should usefully be examined. However, I do not regard the Clause as the way to deal with it.

Mr. Ross: I appreciate the concern expressed by my hon. Friends, and particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). When a Minister of State at the Scottish Office, my right hon. Friend was concerned with this matter, so it comes as no surprise to me that he has put his proposal forward now.
It is all too easy to pass over to the Secretary of State the job of drawing up regulations. This matter is far too important to be slipped off in that way. People often talk about the Secretary of State's powers and what he has to do. I have even heard some of my hon. Friends who would wish this proposal to be adopted say that the Secretary of State already has too many powers.
It is not right at all times to say that we can do things by regulation, which simply means that the Secretary of State goes away and does just as he likes. From the point of view of Parliament and of the people concerned, it is not right that a question like this should be dealt with in that way, the matter coming back later for debate in the House because Parliament has slid its obligations on to the Secretary of State.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) was right to say that this is an important matter. If we could have seen a way through the problem, we might well have put an appropriate provision into the Bill. But it is not as easy as all that, and hon. Members are right to point to the difficulties, as the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) did. We could not proceed without full consultation with the police and the courts. Is it easy, for example, to isolate children's fingerprinting from other aspects of detection or from the fingerprinting of adults? The question sometimes arises whether children should be fingerprinted in any circumstances and, if they are, whether and in what circumstances their fingerprints should be put on the record.
The second of these aspects will have to be considered in any event when implementing the Bill. As my right hon. Friend said, there is no statutory regulation or overall power to tell the police what to do. This is governed by a court decision of 1931, in respect of which no minimum age was laid down.
But the present practice of fingerprints is for the police to retain the prints of people convicted or found guilty. Under the new arrangements, child offenders will not normally be brought before the courts, so there will be no finding of guilt. Therefore, this aspect must now necessarily be considered. As my hon. Friend said when this matter was discussed in Committee, there will now be consultations with the police to work out the practice which should be followed after the new arrangements for children's panels come into operation.
The taking of fingerprints serves a number of important purposes. It is a useful aid to the detection of those who have committed offences—we must face the fact that some very young people commit very serious offences in Scotland —particularly housebreaking, theft and vandalism, where the use of fingerprints is sometimes essential to obtain sufficient evidence to justify proceedings against a suspected offender. Another important point is that the taking of fingerprints can exclude many other people from suspicion.
I think that it would, therefore, be generally agreed that fingerprinting is


an essential part of police investigation of offences, and there are strong arguments against dealing with children's fingerprinting in isolation. Having discussed this with my right hon. Friend before now, I know that we both feel much the same about this. I have noted the views expressed on both sides, today and in Committee, that the present position over fingerprinting of children in Scotland is not entirely satisfactory and that, in this matter, some form of statutory regulation is desirable. Bearing in mind our ultimate objective in the Bill for the treatment of children in trouble, I am not unsympathetic to this point of view, but I do not think that we should try, in this Bill and at this stage, to deal with children's fingerprinting.
After all, this raises wider considerations and its implications need further thought and discussion. The Scottish Law Commission, in its Second Programme, which will be laid before the House and published this week, has already proposed to the Lord Advocate and myself the setting up of a departmental committee to examine criminal procedure in Scotland, and the Lord Advocate and I have approved the programme. We have now to consider, along with the Commission, the scope, composition and timing of the proposed Committee.
It would be right to consider whether this difficult question of fingerprinting could appropriately be referred to that Committee for its views. When I remind the House that the Chairman of the Law Commission is Lord Kilbrandon, who was most responsible and in many ways could be proclaimed the genesis of this important part of the Bill dealing with the children's panels, hon. Members will appreciate that we are dealing with someone who is very conscious of most of the points of view expressed.
I think that that might be the best way of dealing with it, but I appreciate and share the concerns of hon. Members, and I understand the importance of this from the point of view of the police and detection. It is a matter of balance, but we must face the fact that, when we have a Bill about criminal procedures, we should deal with this matter. Before we do, we shall be able to have our minds very much clearer

about what we are doing and what we are asking the Secretary of State to make Regulations about.

Mr. Willis: The purpose of the Clause would, as my right hon. Friend said, be to slip this matter off to the Secretary of State, but this should have been considered when the Bill was considered. This Bill has been under consideration for about two years now, and I suspect that this aspect was never considered at all. It was certainly never considered by Lord Kilbrandon when he framed his Report and I fancy that it was never considered when the Bill was being framed, until I whipped down a new Clause in Committee. That was evident, from what was said at the time.
I am not against fingerprinting. I know the need for it and the uses to which it can be put, but I also recognise that the fingerprinting of children has certain possible effects on a child's mind. But I thought that Part III of the Bill was concerned specifically with creating an atmosphere in which children would not be given the immediate impression that they were criminals and would be labelled as such for the rest of their lives. I said in Committee that I knew that the police were very concerned about this power, which some of them use considerably. I recognise that there are cases in which it should be used.
My right hon. Friend mentioned separating adults from children. Somehow, they manage to do this in England when fingerprinting, but we are now told that it is impossible. I think that it can be done. There is no indication that these much severer and overriding powers of the police have led to any better rate of apprehension than in England, and this should be considered. I do not know that the rate of apprehension in Glasgow, where, I understand, this is generally or at least greatly used, is any better than in any of the large communities in England. So we should not be persuaded by all these arguments—

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether comparable cities in England have a shortage of 400 policemen?

Mr. Willis: I understand that all the centres of population in England have a large shortage of police, and that, in the


largest of all, London, the shortage is far greater than that in Glasgow—

Mr. George Lawson: This matter of a shortage of police keeps coming up. But we know that, over the last 10 years, the police force in Glasgow has increased by nearly 25 per cent. I do not know how this shortage is determined, and what target people have in mind, but surely we should remember that there has been a considerable increase in the number of policemen.

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend is right, of course, and I have argued with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), in an earlier debate, that the numbers in the police force have increased. However, I take the point, but there is a bigger shortage in London than in Glasgow.
I make that point only in passing. I know that the police like to build up records of fingerprints, and I do not blame them. They have a very difficult job to do. But we also have a job to do—a job with a wider interest to take into consideration. We must take account of what the police say, but we also have to take account of wider, personal considerations.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I did not have the benefit of being on the Committee dealing with the Bill, but I am attuned to my hon. Friend's feelings as expressed in the Clause. If the police obtain fingerprints in connection with some form of delinquency and discover that the possible offender went to a certain school, can they take fingerprints of the whole class in which they think the boy or girl may be, or the whole school?

Mr. Willis: Not unless they obtain the permission of the children, or the parents. A person is fingerprinted and photo-graphed in Scotland when he is charged with an offence. Prior to that the police can fingerprint only with consent.
One difficulty is that many people do not know that their consent is required, and if somebody says to them, "Come on —give us your fingerprints," they do so. At Wallyford, in Midlothian, the whole village was fingerprinted. I have no reason to doubt that it was a voluntary

action on the part of the villagers. It must be a very amenable sort of village, without a rebel.
We are considering children, and the effects of fingerprinting upon them. We have accepted the vital principle that we should not deal with children of the age of 8, and so on, as criminals. If they commit serious offences they should be fingerprinted; I have not said otherwise. But it is not the appropriate treatment for the majority of children, and I very much doubt whether it is the appropriate treatment for any child going before a children's panel. It may be correct in the case of children going to sheriff courts.
My right hon. Friend has said that further consideration is needed. The matter should be considered now, when we are dealing with the Bill. It has taken a long time to prepare. I am not clear whether my right hon. Friend made a commitment about the committee which is to be set up to carry out an inquiry into our criminal procedures.

Mr. Ross: I could not do so at this stage.

Mr. Willis: That means that we have no promise that anything will be done about it. I am not altogether happy, and in the circumstances I shall not ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 1

LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I beg to move Amendment 1, in page 2, line 10, leave out '7(1)(e) thereof' and insert:
'7(1) thereof so far as relating to the'.
This is a drafting Amendment. Section 7 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960, is amended by Schedule 7, and we need a corresponding Amendment here.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I hope that this is the last occasion on which I shall say anything on Report. There are two points that I should like to be clear about. First, the Amendment would seem to extend to Section 7 only in so


far as it relates to assessment and exclusion as formulated in Section 7(l)(e) of the 1960 Act. This would seem to be more than drafting.
As far as I can see, under Section 65 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1962, there is a procedure whereby certain children who are ineducable can be transferred to the responsibility of the local health authority. I am wondering whether, if they are referred to under Section 65, they come in under Section 7 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960. Will this mean a change, or will they remain under the responsibility of the local health authority?
I want to refer to an article from the Medical Officer, published on 14th June of this year, which refers to a small group of children who are unable to fit into the educational system. These children are referred by the education authority to the health department under Section 65, in order that they can be cared for under the provisions of Section 7 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960. Bearing in mind that this article refers to 22 children who were excluded as ineducable, more than half of whom were suffering from physical disabilities, concern was expressed that this should be under the responsibility of the social work department and not the local health authority. Does the Amendment, in referring to the totality of Section 7(1) and not just to paragraph (e) bring in the question of medical referral of Section 65 cases under the 1962 Act?
One question raised by the Association of Medical Officers of Health concerns the boarding out of mental defectives. We would accept that there is a real need for medical supervision of these cases. Under the Clause as drafted it would appear that responsibility rests with the social work department. Will the Medical Welfare Commission have power to supervise the work of the social departments in this field? Can I also be told whether, by the Amendment, any changes made in the responsibility for supervising mental defectives who are boarded out? It would seem that the spirit of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act in this respect has been weakened by the Clause as drafted.

Mr. Millan: This is a drafting Amendment. It should be read in conjunction

with Amendment 151, in page 76, line 17, leave out '(e)' and Amendment 152, in page 76, line 19, leave out from '7(1)' to end of line 24 and insert:
'after the words "shall include", there shall be inserted the words "the ascertainment of mental deficiency in any person not of school age within the meaning of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1962".
(1A) In relation to the aforesaid persons the purpose for which arrangements are authorised or required to be made by a local authority under the said section 27(1) as read with section 1(4) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968 shall include the following, that is to say—"; and paragraph (e) shall be omitted".
(2) In subsection (2) for "(1)" where secondly occurring there shall be substituted the word "(1A)"'.
Perhaps the hon. Member will study those Amendments. If he does this Amendment may be a little clearer to him. I do not want to stimulate him to make another speech when we reach Amendments 151 and 152, but he will get a better idea if he looks at them.
The powers of the Medical Welfare Commission are not affected by the Bill. We are simply referring to the local health authority the function of ascertaining mental health deficiency. It is a medical matter and is not for the social work department. A slight adjustment is required because the references in Schedule 7 to the 1960 Act and the 1962 Education (Scotland) Act are being changed. This is purely a drafting Amendment. There is no change in the function of local health authorities in relating to the ascertainment of mental deficiency.

Mr. MacArthur: I rise almost on a point of order to call attention to the fact that Amendments 151 and 152 are associated with this Amendment. Before you took the Chair. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Mr. Speaker was good enough to suggest that an indication of groupings of Amendments from the Government would be welcomed. We should also welcome it. There are 189 Amendments, of which 187 remain to be dealt with. At our present rate of progress it is conceivable that it will take us nearly 60 hours to debate these Amendments.
It would be for the general convenience of the House to have some indication of groupings, and it would be to the convenience of my hon. Friends if purely


drafting Amendments could be grouped together and taken with some rapidity.

Mr. Millan: That is a perfectly fair point. I have quite a number of later Amendments grouped together. There was some misunderstanding between Mr. Speaker and I on the question of grouping. We have now sorted this out and I shall as soon as possible have the information on grouping passed to hon. Members. I apologise for the fact that it has not already been done.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 17, at end insert:
(5) On the date of the commencement of Part III of this Act the functions of education authorities in relation to the establishments which immediately before that date were approved schools and the children resident therein shall be transferred to the local authorities in whose areas the said children are ordinarily resident or, in the case of children who have no ordinary residence in Scotland, such local authorities as the Secretary of State may determine.
The purpose of the Amendment is to make it clear that on the date when Part III comes into operation and approved schools as such cease to exist the function of education authorities in relation to approved schools will be transferred to the appropriate local authority; that will be the local authority normally in whose area the child is ordinarily resident. This is a consequential Amendment made necessary by the fact that when Part III comes into operation we shall no longer have approved schools as such.

Mr. William Hannan: I. too, want to follow the point made on the previous Amendment. Are we considering with this Amendment the new Schedule on approved schools which covers 2½ pages? If we are, are we now entitled to debate the whole issue? It seems a pity, as there are so many Amendments, that this issue will be inadequately discussed on Report.
Do I understand the position correctly? If children who are resident in approved schools outwith their areas are coming back to their own areas on the due date, is my hon. Friend satisfied that there is sufficient accommodation within the areas to which the children will return? Is not this one of the problems which will arise consequent upon changes made

earlier in the Bill? How many local authorities have approved schools under their own management? How many are privately run? How many are run by county councils and large burghs? I should be surprised if any large burgh has an approved school, although some may be run by counties and by cities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): There has been no request to the Chair so far to discuss the new Schedule with this Amendment.

Mr. Millan: If it had been the intention that the Schedule should be discussed with this Amendment, obviously I would have said so and said something about the Schedule. The Schedule will be dealt with separately.
My hon. Friend has misunderstood the position. There is no question of transferring people from one approved school to another to get them within the areas of any particular local authority. The responsibility for, for example, making the financial contributions for children who are at approved schools falls at present on the local education authority. It is the appropriate local authority for making those contributions. After the passage of the Bill the appropriate authority will no longer be the education authority. It will be the local authority which has the social work department for the purposes of the Bill. It is therefore necessary to provide that, in future, the contributions will be paid by the social work department, or at any rate by the local authority which is the social work authority, and not by the education authority. That is entirely different from transferring people from one school to another, and there is no question of that arising. General questions about residential establishments do not arise on the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10

FINANCIAL AND OTHER ASSISTANCE TO VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS ETC., FOR SOCIAL WORK

5.15 p.m.

Mr. MacArthur: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 7, line 37. leave out 'sums' and insert 'grants'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 4, in line 39, leave out 'those sums' and insert 'such grants'.

Mr. MacArthur: We shall be very happy to take the two Amendments together. Amendment No. 4 is purely consequential.
In Committee I moved an Amendment to omit subsection (2). The Minister said that he would consider the matter. I am obliged to him for writing to me a few days ago in some detail explaining that the advice given to him, which we accept, was that subsection (2) should remain.
There is a further point which is rather more than a drafting matter. Subsection (2) says:
The conditions on which any sums are paid"—
that is, grants and loans—
… may include conditions for securing the repayment in whole or in part of those sums.
If "sums" refers to a payment which is a loan, the conditions required under subsection (2) are unnecessary, because a loan, by its very nature, implies some condition of repayment. The Minister said this in his letter to me:
I agree that a loan clearly contains its own conditions of repayment.
Apart from that, we believe that the word is superfluous, if it embraces both loans and grants, because subsection (1) says this:
The Secretary of State may make grants and loans of such amounts, and subject to such conditions, as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine …
Therefore, "sums" is unnecessary for two reasons. The first is that, on the loan aspect, there is no need for this condition, because the fact that it is a loan suggests that there would be a condition of repayment. The second is that in any event the Secretary of State has power to impose conditions under subsection (1).

Mr. Millan: The wording is all right as it is, but it would be more logical to accept the hon. Gentleman's wording. Therefore, I am perfectly happy to accept the Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 4, in page 7, line 39, leave out 'those sums' and insert 'such grants'.—[Mr. MacArthur.]

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 8, line 8, at end insert:
() On the commencement of this Act, the power of the Secretary of State to give financial assistance and of local authorities to give financial and other assistance under sections (Financial assistance by the Ministry of Health and the Secretary of State to certain voluntary organisations) and (Financial and other assistance by local authorities to certain voluntary organisations) of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 shall cease in so far as any such assistance may be given under this section.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the Committee to discuss with this Amendment Amendment No. 13, Amendment No. 176, and Amendment No. 188.

Mr. Millan: These four Amendments are necessary to make the necessary repeals of the Health Services and Public Health Bill when it is enacted in so far as these provisions of that Bill overlap the provisions of this Bill. The difficulty has been that the Health Services and Public Health Bill has been going through the Parliamentary process at the same time as this Bill. There are some of these provisions which are virtually the same, but it is necessary to have the provisions in both Bills because there may be a difference in the operative date. If there were not the provisions in both Bills, there would be an unfortunate gap.
That is why we have this overlap of provisions. What we provide for in these Amendments is that when the Bill comes into operation the provisions of the Health Services and Public Health Bill which overlap with this Bill will be repealed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12

GENERAL SOCIAL WELFARE SERVICES OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 8, line 23, after 'welfare', insert:
'including the specified functions of school welfare officers and specialist social workers'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 31, in Clause 59, page 35, line 13, after 'establishments', insert:
'including assessment and specialist centres'.

Mr. Hannan: On a point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Amendment No. 31 does not deal with exactly the same point as Amendment No. 6 and that it would be more convenient, certainly for me, if the two were discussed separately.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's request. This is Mr. Speaker's selection. He selected Amendment No. 31 for debate only with Amendment No. 6, and not for a separate Division.

Mr. Brown: I make no apology for tabling the Amendment because it raises a matter which was not adequately discussed either in Committee or in another place. It is significant in the sense that, as with so many other things, Scotland is a little ahead of the rest of the country.
The main arguments for the Amendment were not adduced in Committee, mainly because on the morning when Clause 12 should have been discussed tempers were somewhat frayed, doors were being banged and various points of orders were being raised. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not wish to encourage hon. Gentlemen opposite to introduce the same atmosphere today. Suffice to say that the Clause sneaked through with the first part of it being relatively ignored. Very little was said in the Lords about it, although it raises, because it deals with the generality of the provisions in the Bill, the whole question of the sort of social work department that we wish to see.
Reference has been made to Lord Kilbrandon. It is interesting to note that it was stated in paragraph 1 of the White Paper "Social Work and the Community":
The other"—
recommendation from the Kilbrandon Committee
was a 'social education department' of the education authority, formed by the merger of existing organisations concerned with children's special needs which would provide all the facilities necessary for the care, treatment and training of these children.

It is in this context that it is relevant to argue for the inclusion of school welfare officers and, as the Amendment proposes, specialist social workers.
I have suggested that, from the point of school welfare work, we in Scotland are a little ahead of the rest of the country. I am delighted to say that in Glasgow we are somewhat ahead of the rest of Scotland in that Glasgow has the only local education authority with school welfare officers. Glasgow employs 20 at present, and while that number is not enough, it provides a challenge to other authorities.
The functions of a school welfare officer are, to some extent relatively new. He has a range of activities and functions which include more than the problems arising from the non-attendance of children at school. As the White Paper suggests in paragraph 20:
The Government"—
and we should remember that this is a Government White Paper
think, however, that responsibility for providing school welfare services should be assigned to the new department"—
that is, the social work department
and that existing education authority staff employed specifically on welfare duties should be brought into it. By continuing to work in the closest association with teachers, they could form an effective link between the schools and the social services generally.
Obviously the Government have changed their mind. Critics of the Government often suggest that they should change their mind more often. Certainly on this issue they have changed it between the time when the White Paper was discussed and the production of the Bill. Both the White Paper and the Kilbrandon Report proved the need to include social welfare officers.
We then come to the question of specialist social workers. I concede that there is more room for disagreement about this aspect. However, referring in paragraph 11 to those with special skills, the White Paper commented:
Their employment in one department would, however, permit much greater flexibility of deployment than is now practicable …
The case has been well made out, although the matter was not examined in detail in the White Paper, for all social workers—irrespective of any added training and qualifications to their basic


skills—to be employed in one department, so that their specialist knowledge and techniques may be diverted to the various areas which need them.
It does not seem unreasonable that hospital almoners—they now go under the new title of medical social workers— should also come within the social work department. That does not mean that hospitals and other places where these people are employed would be denuded of their specialist staff. The same argument could be applied to probation officers. In view of their approach to training and so on, it would be advisable for them to start off in one department, and then be hived off to other areas, rather than being merely offshoots of a service which is fundamentally similar but which is completely separate.
I raise this matter because it is the key to the whole philosophy of this part of the Bill. I have a great admiration for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If he wishes to say this in his election address, he can announce that I consider him to be a man of great charm, ability and compassion. However, he has a weakness.

Mr. Ross: Only one?

Mr. Brown: It is a weakness shared by many of us. My right hon. Friend is not noted for changing his mind. On this occasion I am not asking him to change his mind but to return to the original thoughts of the White Paper. I am not at all optimistic about his accepting the Amendment. I hope, however, that he will make encouraging noises and say that the Scottish office will look with keen interest at the way in which local authorities act when they set up the new social work department. In other words, I hope that my right hon. Friend will say that every encouragement will be given, as the Amendment suggests, to authorities to bring all social workers with common skills and knowledge into one department. It is not just a question of centralisation for the sake of efficiency in terms of the more efficient use of labour. I think that it makes sense.
Having said a few kind words about the Secretary of State, I am sure that he will respond, if not by suggesting that we do something now, at least in the

sense of looking to the future and saying that my ideas are consistent with the philosophy of the White Paper and what we are all trying to do. I hope that he will give my ideas every blessing.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Hannan: I want to support these two Amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) has spent some time on the first of them, and I shall dwell mainly on the second one.
The whole purpose of the Bill is to try and meet the need for an effective integrated service. There is a variety of agencies, and it is hoped that where different members of the same family have individual problems, the one service can deal with them all. However, although it was originally intended to bring all the services together, that will not now happen because of an Amendment which was made at an earlier stage.
The first Amendment deals with welfare officers of local authorities. As I understand it, they are to be appointed in addition to the attendance officers who are employed by education authorities in the counties and cities. They will continue their job, of course, and they are very valuable people in the sense that at an early stage they will be able to report weaknesses in a family structure which could give rise to trouble in the future. As I understand it, one of the purposes of the Bill is to deal with these at an early stage and so prevent some of our young people going awry later.
However, as far as I know, welfare officers are employed in only one local authority, and that is Glasgow. Counties which are education authorities will be able to employ such people if they wish, but in component parts of counties which are not education authorities, it will not be possible to engage them. Is this the reason for the Government's reluctance to include this class of social workers?
The White Paper indicates clearly that the Government think that the responsibility for providing school welfare services should be assigned to the new Department. At an earlier stage, they indicated that attendance officers proved an invaluable source of early warning of children's and family problems because bad attendance at school often indicated such problems. If there is a link-up


between attendance officers and school welfare officers, who will be skilled social workers, part of the problem can be dealt with at an early stage.
The other Amendment deals with assessment centres and the provision of what used to be called remand homes; in other words, accommodation for young people who are in trouble. However, we are concerned not only with accommodation for children, because the responsibility is put on local authorities to pro-side various categories of accommodation for disability, old age and other groups of various types. These in turn call for staff of varying skills to deal with the different problems. A wide range of specialised facilities is needed, for example, for the mentally handicapped. All these requirements will call for remand homes, detention centres, borstals, diagnostic clinics, old people's homes, and the rest of it.
However, under Clause 37(2) for example, a child shall not be detained if the reporter considers that compulsory treatment is not required. The time for which a child can be detained will be cut down. But the immediate point to which I want to come is how children are treated if, for instance, they are detained in a police office.
It will come as no surprise to some hon. Members, although some of us were horrified when we learned of it, that children held in a police office and taken to a former remand home for four days before their cases are heard may be relieved of their clothes and given khaki shirts and shorts and different shoes to wear. One can imagine the indignity of that, especially if, subsequently, they are found innocent of the charges against them. I had such a case in my constituency not very long ago.
The intention behind these Amendments is to ask my right hon. Friend whether consideration has been given to these- two points. If it has, why are school welfare officers not included in this part of the Bill? If the short answer is that they are, one will feel almost constrained to apologise to the House for taking up its time, but great value is placed on such officers locally. As for the point about accommodation, probably my right hon. Friend will say that the Bill provides for short detention, that

it will not be protracted, that the panel will meet on the day after a child has been apprehended so that the period of detention is cut down. But may I remind him that under other Clauses a child may be detained for three or four days and, in some instances, up to 21 days? I would like an assurance that proper accommodation will be provided. At present, it is quite inadequate. In cases of certain unruly children, the treatment given is not determined by the needs of the child but by the accommodation available. That is quite wrong. I would like an assurance that the accommodation will be adequate for the treatment of children and that, pending the time that the panel meets, no child will feel that he has already been adjudged guilty and is being treated as such. That has happened in some instances.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) had a few soft and flattering words to say about me. However, I do not know what he expects from me. He knows quite well that I am not given to changing my mind. He read a passage from the White Paper which suggested that in the opinion of the Government school welfare officers should be included. I have not changed my mind. School welfare officers are included. So, if my hon. Friend likes to apologise—

Mr. Hannan: Certainly I will do that.

Mr. Ross: Any other apologies will be gratefully received for this misunderstanding of what is intended. There is no doubt about it.
There is no statutory obligation on any local authority to employ a school welfare officer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Provan suggested, this is one of the positions in which Glasgow leads.
I could not accept the Amendment because it is misconceived and would be restrictive. One of the things we want to do is to get away from narrow specialisms. I do not want this new Department to have the same sort of divisions which now exist. We have to develop much wider specialisms which will enable us to get a measure of inter-changeability. There is no doubt that much of the work to be done will bring social workers into contact with the


schools, and it would be wrong to ignore that aspect. Equally, it is undesirable to define in a Statute how this will work. There is no doubt that the Social Work Department will be able to undertake social work in co-operation with the schools and to place some of its staff in schools in places like Glasgow.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mary-hill spotted a defect in the Amendment when he discussed local authorities, which would include large burghs, which, apart from the cities, are not education authorities. That is another technical fault in his Amendment. I understand his concern and I appreciate that he was merely probing to see whether we had forgotten or overlooked anything.
Although he did not say so, I gathered that he was dealing with Amendment No. 31. A statutory duty to provide specialist centres would not be effective unless the kinds of specialist centres were to be defined, and the definition would have to be in the Bill. Before we knew where we were, we might find that that definition had become out of date and even that it was retarding development. Assessment is an integral part of social work and adequate assessment centres will be necessary, but it would be misleading to imply that assessments can be made properly only in an assessment centre, or that the name "assessment centre" has a generally recognised meaning. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend was right in what he had to say about the kind of place and the kind of treatment required for young people.
We are sympathetic towards this idea, but we are limited. In the past we have had Bills involving remand homes or other kinds of centres, and yet we have never provided adequate establishments. That has been one of the troubles in the remand of prisoners, old and young, for a long time.
I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that we share his concern and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Provan will appreciate that we understand the point he has raised.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: On that generous assurance, which emphasises my point that we had not discussed this

matter adequately, I am delighted to beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 8, line 23, leave out 'in their area'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may be convenient with this to discuss Amendment No. 8, Amendment No. 9, in page 8, line 28, leave out from 'adequate' to end of line 31, and Amendment No. 10. I ought to point out that Amendment No. 9 has not been selected by Mr. Speaker for a Division.

Mr. Millan: When the Clause was discussed in Committee, there was a good deal of criticism about the drafting, and a number of hon. Members felt that there was some repetition which meant that, taken as a whole, the Clause was very difficult to follow, particularly those provisions about giving assistance in the form of cash or in the form of kind to persons in need. I promised that I would consider the drafting to see whether we could tighten and improve it, and the three Government Amendments are almost exclusively directed towards that end, although there are one or two minor matters of which we have taken care at the same time.
Basically, what we have done is to make the subsections more intelligible and made it easier to see what it is we are trying to achieve. In doing so, we have removed three lines about authorities proceeding in accordance with guidance which the Secretary of State may give, because, as was pointed out, that provision is inherent in the Bill as a whole in view of the general powers of the Secretary of State in Clause 5.
I hope that with that explanation the House will feel that the Clause is much clearer and that the Amendments are therefore acceptable.

Mr. MacArthur: These Amendments follow the hon. Gentleman's undertaking in Committee carefully to consider the drafting which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Wylie) and I severely criticised. In its original form, the Clause was a memorable example of bureaucratic verbosity and I am glad that its


length has now been cut considerably. In its amended version, the Clause will lose nothing, but it will gain substantially and the gain is that of comprehension. The Clause is now much clearer. Amendment Mo. 10 alone has the effect of cutting out 41 lines and introducing 22 in their place, almost halving the length of that major part of the Clause. The Clause is considerably improved by the Amendments, and I am much obliged to the Under-Secretary for fulfilling his word so thoroughly.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 8, in page 8, line 25 leave out first 'in' and insert 'for'.

No. 10, in page 8, line 29 leave out from beginning to end of line 23 on page 9 and insert:
'such assistance may be given to, or in respect of, the persons specified in the next following subsection, in kind or in cash subject to subsections (3) and (4) of this section.

(2) The persons specified for the purposes of the foregoing subsection are—

(a) a person, being a child under the age of eighteen, requiring assistance in kind, or in exceptional circumstances in cash, where such assistance appears to the local authority likely to diminish the need—

(i) to receive him into, or to keep him in, care under this Part of this Act, or
(ii) of his being referred to a children's hearing under Part III of this Act;

(b) a person in need requiring assistance in kind or, in exceptional circumstances constituting an emergency, in cash, where the giving of assistance in either form would avoid the local authority being caused greater expense in the giving of assistance in another form, or where probable aggravation of the person's need would cause greater expense to the local authority on a later occasion.

(3) Before giving assistance to, or in respect of. a person in cash under subsection (1) of this section a local authority shall have regard to his eligibility for receiving assistance from any other statutory body and, if he is so eligible, to the availability to him of that assistance in his time of need.

(4) Assistance given in kind or in cash to, or in respect of, persons under this section may be given unconditionally or subject to such conditions as to the repayment of the assistance, or of its value, whether in whole or in part, as the local authority may consider reasonable having regard to the means of the person receiving the assistance and to the eligibility of the person for assistance from any other statutory body.'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Clause 14

HOME HELP AND LAUNDRY FACILITIES

Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 9, line 37, leave out 'for households'.
This is a very small drafting Amendment which was mentioned in Committee. It seems offensive to the use of language to add the words "for households" to the words "home help". The intention would be perfectly clear without them.

Mr. Millan: I cannot advise the House to accept this drafting Amendment. It might be possible to consider a home help in the context of people living in a boarding house, or in a lodging house, which is not a household. Having the words "for households" therefore adds something to the Clause. In any case, the phrase is required in line 41 to deal with laundry facilities and it is also used in the National Health (Scotland) Act, 1947, and in the Health Services and Public Health Bill which has just gone through the House. For the sake of consistency and because the phrase adds a little to the meaning of the Clause, we should retain it. I have been fairly ready to accept drafting Amendments where I thought they were worthwhile, but in this case it would be a mistake to agree to this Amendment and I hope that it will be withdrawn.

Mr. MacArthur: The Minister disappoints me now. We were getting on so well I thought that he would be bound to accept a most sensible Amendment. The phrase "for households" is linguistically offensive. Despite the Minister's observations, I cannot believe that it is necessary. It is inconceivable that a local authority would interpret the Clause without those two words as meaning that it should provide home help for boarding houses. The situation is too far-fetched for words. I do not believe that because the words have been used in the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, they have any particular sanctity. They were probably unnecessary and ugly words in that Act, just as they are now. I am sorry that the Minister is being obstinate about what I believe to be a helpful drafting Amendment

Mr. John Brewis: When the Minister is talking about a household, does that have to be a house? What would happen to a family in a caravan? Would they be able to get home help?

Mr. Millan: "Household" covers that, but not boarding houses or hotels. The House should remember that it is not a question of the local authority interpreting this Clause. We are actually placing a specific duty upon it to provide certain services, and in doing that we must make absolutely sure that we have defined that duty as precisely as possible.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 10, line 6, at end insert:
() On the coming into operation of the provisions of this and the last two foregoing sections, the provisions of sections (Home help and laundry facilities), (Extension of power, under the National Assistance Act, 1948, of local authority to provide accommodation elsewhere than in premises managed by them or another such authority) and (Promotion, by local authorities, of the welfare of old people) of the Health Services and Public Health Act. 1968 shall cease to have effect.—[Mr. Millan.]

Clause 15

DUTY OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE FOR ORPHANS, DESERTED CHILDREN, ETC.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment 14, page 11, line 11, at end insert:
(5) Where under the last foregoing subsection a local authority take over the care of a child from another local authority, that other authority shall where possible inform the parent of the child that the care of the child has been so taken over.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be convenient if we discussed Amendment No. 15 with this.

Mr. Millan: The House will see that what we are doing is transferring Clause 19 to the end of Clause 15. This was suggested in Committee by an hon. Gentleman opposite. He pointed out that the functions of Clause 19 had so reduced in size that they hardly warranted a separate Clause and should be transferred elsewhere.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 15, in page 15, line 1, leave out Clause 19. —[Mr. Millan.]

Clause 21

MODE OF PROVISION OF ACCOMMODATION AND MAINTENANCE

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment 16, page 15, line 31, at end insert:
(3) Arrangements may be made by a local authority under this section for boarding out a child in England or Wales or for maintaining him in any accommodation in England or Wales which a local authority in those countries is authorised to use for that purpose by virtue of section 13 of the Children Act 1948.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be for the convenience of the House if we also discuss Amendments 27 and 132.

Mr. Ross: Under Section 13 of the Children Act, 1948, which is a Great Britain enactment, a local authority may discharge its duties to provide accommodation and maintenance for a child in its care by boarding it out or maintaining it in a local authority home or placing it in a family home willing to receive the child.
There are other instances of an English local authority arranging for a child to be looked after in Scotland and vice versa. The 1948 Act is to be repealed for Scotland, but it is desirable to keep in force the arrangement whereby children in care in Scotland can be boarded out or placed in a proper establishment in England and Wales, and similarly whereby children in England and Wales can be boarded out or placed in an appropriate establishment in Wales.
This is the purpose of the Amendment, which makes clear that a supervision requirement may provide for a child to be sent by the children's hearing to a place in England and Wales where suitable arrangements can be made to deal with it. This may be desirable if there is, in England or Wales, a particularly appropriate establishment for treating a certain kind of child. The Scottish local authority would remain formally responsible for the child's supervision and would have to make proper financial and other arrangements for the child while he or she was south of the Border.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27

SUPERVISION AND CARE OF PERSONS PUT ON PROBATION OR RELEASED FROM PRISONS, ETC.

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 18, line 1, leave out 'the'.—[Mr. Ross.]

Mr. Thomas Steele: I beg to move, Amendment No. 18, page 18, line 26, leave out 'and' and insert:
(e) arrangements for the co-operation of the local authorities with each other regarding the performance of functions under this section; and.
This Amendment adds a new paragraph to subsection (3) of Clause 27. Under that subsection it is necessary for local authorities to have a probation scheme to make provision for certain matters. These are then listed in subsection (3). My new paragraph includes another provision, indicating to local authorities that they must make:
arrangements for the co-operation of the local authorities with each other regarding the performance of functions under this section …
The first thing I imagine my hon. Friend will say is that this is unnecessary, that there is sufficient provision in present Statutes for the co-operation of local authorities with one another. I feel that it is insufficient in this case, and would like this mandatory provision included. The other reason why I put down this Amendment is because of an undertaking which my hon. Friend gave in Committee when he said:
I said that I would make arrangements between Committee and Report to discuss combinations between one local authority and another, with the local authority Associations. …I shall be able to tell hon. Members at Report stage the outcome of that meeting."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 18th June, 1968; c. 359–60.]
I have therefore put this Amendment down to give my hon. Friend an opportunity to tell us what has been the result of these conversations. There is a wider wider purpose to the Amendment. We all want to make a success of the provisions of Part III of the Bill. We have to consider what conditions will be operating when the Bill becomes an Act. What will be the time-table for its provisions? Before it becomes an Act the Royal Commission will have reported

and made new suggestions about the boundaries of local authorities. Therefore, it is clear that many local authorities which will be under an obligation to carry out the Bill's provisions will view them with some reluctance because they will have to engage new staff and to expand the work which they are doing. They will not be very enthusiastic about entering into such commitments in order to carry out the Bill's provisions.
6.0 p.m.
As a result of Clause 27, the probation service is to be disbanded. On Monday, we had a long argument in the House about the disbandment of a regiment for which the Government had no operational requirement. But it cannot be said that the functions of the probation service will disappear. A service provided by probation officers will continue, and if we want the things done which we feel should be done the functions carried out by them will increase. If the probation service is disbanded, as the Bill suggests, and the probation officers are frittered away among the local authorities, I cannot visualise the Bill being the success which the Minister expects it to be.
We shall have two things. The local authorities will be reluctant to enter into commitments, and the probation officers transferred to local authorities will have a grievance. Therefore, from an administrative point of view, I cannot feel that the Bill will be the success which we all desire it to be.
Is it necessary to disband the probation services as it exists? Would it not be possible to implement the Bill's provisions about the creation of children's panels and the abolition of the probation committee by the new social committees taking over the responsibility? Under this arrangement the provisions of the Bill would be carried out, but the probation service would remain as a unit, and then, through the work of the social committees, there could be co-operation between the probation officers and the social welfare officers. This would enable the probation officers, working as a body, to help the social welfare workers.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it is essential that the experience of the skilled probation officers should be available to help with the work to be done by the social welfare


officers under the new panels. There is no reason why the Secretary of State cannot so arrange matters that the social workers and probation officers come under the social work committee, and there could be agreement between the large burghs and the counties on the utilisation of the probation service in giving assistance to the social welfare workers.
Whatever arrangements are made, they will be only interim arrangements until we carry into effect the reforms suggested by the Royal Commission on Local Government which we shall be receiving by the end of the year.
What I suggest would have the added advantage that it would satisfy the courts. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave an undertaking to the sheriffs that adequate provision would be made to ensure that the courts were served in the way that they are served now. I find it difficult to see how that would be done administratively if the probation service were disbanded and the probation officers were distributed among the local authorities. The implementation of this undertaking would be very much easier if there were acceptance of my suggestion to leave the probation service as it is and to make arrangements for co-operation between the probation officers and the social welfare workers.
There is no reason why something like this cannot be done under Clause 27. I know that it would not be all that satisfactory. However, it would be much more satisfactory than what is likely to happen when the Bill comes into operation and the probation officers are distributed among the local authorities, which will be reluctant to carry out the Bill's provisions because they do not know the future of each local authority. I believe that my solution would help the courts, the probation service and local authorities in the interim period before we receive the Royal Commission's Report.

Mr. John Robertson: The effect of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) is that the Bill should not be passed. The concept is that we should have a single group of social workers to carry out all the specialist services presently being done by a whole range of officers, in-

cluding probation officers. It is wrong to see probation officers as welfare officers. I see them as servants of the court who are attached to the court rather than to a local authority. I have never thought that the local authority provided this service. I was a member of a local authority in which there was a joint probation committee—the Lanarkshire Joint Probation Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) will bear me out that while it carried out a function, it was not very effective. Our duty was to supply the money and the facilities for experts to carry out the function. The connection between the probation officers and the local authorities was pretty tenuous. With a joint committee, it was more tenuous than with a single authority.
If my hon. Friend is arguing for the retention of probation officers, in which I could go some way with him, the same argument would apply to a whole range of other services under the Bill. What I think is wrong with the Bill is that there is room also for a general welfare department of the local authority for specialist services. One cannot take a social worker at any time and make him an adequate probation officer.
The other possibility which could have been acted upon in the Bill was, as I said in Committee, to allow local authorities to amalgamate for certain of their functions. The probation service might be a good example. Why should not a number of local authorities, if they feel that they can provide a better service for a limited number of functions, or even only one service, get together and evolve a scheme for making that provision?

Mr. Steele: We must face the fact that we now have the Bill in its present form. I could have argued about what I would like the Bill to do, but it is too late for that now. I have made a plea for a scheme which would, I trust, make the provisions of the Bill more successful.

Mr. Robertson: I accept that that is what my hon. Friend means by his Amendment, but it was hardly what he meant by his contribution to the discussion. He went a great deal further than that. I accept his arguments. I feel the same way as he does. If he feels that way, however, he cannot accept the Bill at all.
I would have been more inclined to support my hon. Friend's Amendment had he been more precise and named the probation service as a service for which local authorities could have combined. That could have taken the probation service out of the context of the ordinary social work of a local authority and provided a separate and comprehensive service.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: The point made by the hon. Member is met because his hon. Friend's Amendment relates to a Clause which is concerned precisely with the probation service. Therefore, I cannot see how the hon. Member's argument arises.

Mr. Robertson: I do not think that the hon. Member has related the Amendment to the Bill. My hon. Friend is saying that the existing probation service should be allowed to continue, but it could not continue with the Amendment. As I see it—we discussed this in Committee—the existing co-operation between local authorities could not continue with the Amendment.
I support the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West but I must point out to him again that he is seeking to destroy the whole concept of the Bill so that we do not nave specialists but would have one social service department and any person employed within that department could carry out any of the functions which fell to that department.
6.15 p.m.
If my hon. Friend were to take probation services away from the local authority, there would be a lesser work load on the full complement within the social service department. The more jobs that we give them, the more likely they are to be fully engaged. This is important, too. I do not want to see people hanging about with nothing to do, as may well happen in many areas. However, I do not think that we can achieve what my hon. Friend desires, and what I desire, with the Amendment at this late stage.
It is a pity that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary had not thought in some way of keeping the probation service out-with the social service department of local authorities although under the control of the social work committee of a local authority. This could have been done

without destroying the existing probation service, which has done, and is doing, a very good job.

Mr. Lawson: I do not quite see where my two hon. Friends get to such cross-purposes. It seemed to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) went much further than his Amendment. He argued for complete retention of the probation service. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) has gone still further.
The Amendment relates to subsection (3) of Clause 27, by which the duty of preparing a probation scheme is imposed upon the local authorities. Paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (3) are merely descriptions of what is to be done in the scheme. By his Amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West seeks to lay upon the local authorities the duty that in carrying out the probation scheme they shall seek to work with each other. Part of the arrangement would be that wherever possible they would function in relation to each other.
That would not be impossible. I had it in mind at an earlier stage that wherever possible, where services could be rendered on a co-operative basis, they should by all means be rendered co-operatively. I would like my hon. Friend the Undersecretary to say that that is what he has in mind and that there will be nothing to hinder the local authorities from acting in exactly the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West wishes them to act, the difference being that he wishes to impose an obligation on the local authorities to function in that way.
I do not know whether it is advisable that they should be compelled by means of a change in the law to function in that way. What my hon. Friend was saying—

Mr. Hannan: At an earlier stage, in Committee, was there not the opportunity to make provision for that?

Mr. Lawson: No. As I understood, it was a question whether the probation service should become part of the joint, combined or comprehensive work service to be rendered by the local authorities.

Mr. Hannan: My hon. Friend has spoken of co-operation. At an earlier stage of the Bill, was there not power


to do that, not only in respect of the probation service, but in respect of other services?

Mr. Lawson: We were arguing, surely, at an earlier stage, whether probation be kept out of the provisions made for social service in a comprehensive way, and what the probation service wanted was that the probation service should be outside the Bill altogether. This was not accepted by the Committee. It was not accepted by myself. I argue differently. However, I see that Mr. Speaker is becoming impatient, so I will get back to the point.
It seems to me that my hon. Friend is saying, in his Amendment, as distinct from what he said in his speech, if he will excuse my saying so, that this probation scheme part of the comprehensive social work service which the local authority has to render should be worked in conjunction with other local authorities. I myself hope that it will be worked in this way, but I am very doubtful of the wisdom of imposing upon local authorities the duty of doing it in conjunction with other local authorities. Where it can be so done, I hope that it will be so done. I expect the Under-Secretary to tell us that that is his intention. If he can say that, I think he will meet the point which is being genuinely made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West.

Mr. Dewar: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Thomas Steele). His Amendment is ingenious. I know why he moved it, but it is not one which I can support. The whole trouble, in my view, stems from the Government's unfortunate decision to retain large burghs within the social work structure. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows my views on this matter and that they are the views of several of my hon. Friends. However, though we are now in the position that we must accept that what has been done has been done, and that large burghs now retain their identity in these functions. I cannot accept my hon. Friend's argument that local authorities will be reluctant to cooperate and unwilling to use the expertise of those probation officers who are allocated to them.

Mr. Thomas Steele: I must confess that I made my point very badly if I gave my hon. Friend that impression. I said that it would be necessary and essential to use that expertise and that local authorities would welcome it. I said they would be reluctant to implement the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Dewar: This is a much wider-ranging point, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) said, almost an argument for saying that the Bill should not have been presented at this time at all, not till we have the reorganisation of local government, though that is an argument I am not prepared to support.
However, it seems to me that if, in advance of the Royal Commission's report, we push through these complicated, comprehensive arrangements, we have to accept that there is an unfortunate fragmentation which stems from the Government's decision to change their original decision on large burghs. It seems to me that if the scheme as a whole is to be workable the probation service must be in it, and I cannot disagree more strongly than I do with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, who seemed to hint that the probation officers are a race apart from the general social workers. This point was made in Committee and I do not want to labour it. The whole philosophical basis of the Bill is that the probation workers have knowledge, expertise and ideology in common with social workers, and that, basically, their work is of the same nature.

Mr. John Robertson: There is a very vital difference, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, in that the probation officer, whatever his future title may be, has responsibility and function in a court of law, whereas the other employees of the social work department have no such function, and that function puts him apart.

Mr. Dewar: This distinction has been drawn before, that the probation officer is a servant of the court and almost a law enforcement officer, and so on, but I think that the distinction is a false distinction. If a person appears before a court and is referred to the care of a probation officer that person must be seen, not in a vacuum, as it were, but


against the background of his home environment, his family troubles, his employment, and so on, and the facts of all those circumstances must be known to assess which of the multiplicity of factors are at the root of his being in trouble, and they have to be dealt with in exactly the same way as they would have been if the person had not appeared before a court but had been within the ken of the social worker in some other way. The whole point is to have an efficient organisation with a whole range of facilities and workers to deal with these problems whenever they may occur. I am not prepared to accept this as the hard and fast distinction which my hon. Friend has tried to draw.
It is suggested to me from my own conversations with probation officers that a very large number of them are quite prepared to accept that they have duties very similar to those of other members of the social work department, and that, indeed, they look forward to a challenge, the challenge of widening their experience and moving into other fields. In exactly the same way I think that it would be useful if people not at present involved in probation work but dealing with similar problems can make their services available to the probation service. It would be a great mistake, and would set the whole scheme off on a very bad footing, if we kept the probation officers out of the social work department. The juvenile probation services would have to be included, even if these should be transitional arrangements.
I can sympathise with my hon. Friend, but it would be a mistake to accept his Amendment, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will resist it.

Mr. MacArthur: From this Amendment a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite have developed an argument about the future structure of the probation service. Of course, it is perfectly natural that that should be so, because the Amendment relates to the making of a probation scheme.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene at this stage to say that it is not our intention to pursue on this Amendment the question of the future structure of the probation service.

With great respect to hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on the Amendment, we feel that it would be more appropriate to explain our view on Amendment No. 20, which, I believe, will be the next you will call, Mr. Speaker.
May I, however, make one comment on the Amendment, a comment which, I think, is of some importance. As I understand the Amendment, it would have the effect of providing that, in the making of a probation scheme, local authorities would make arrangements for cooperation with one another, and the Amendment certainly touches on one of the great points of concern we have about the structure of the probation service, and that is the fragmentation of the service which would follow the Bill if passed in its present form.
The argument for co-operation, and, indeed, for amalgamations, between local authorities is a very strong one we advanced vigorously in Committee, and I will not go over the familiar ground again. Hon. Gentlemen will, however, recall that we take the view that the working of this desirable Bill has been endangered by the introduction of a multiplicity of operating authorities.
There are to be in Scotland now, following an Amendment made to Clause 1 in Committee, 56 social work departments, 56 local authorities charged with the exercise of functions under the Bill. We do not consider that the Bill can operate successfully when the work of operating authorities is fragmented in this way. This argument has been deployed over and over again, and it recurs on Clause after Clause of the Bill, in terms of the career structure of welfare workers, the attracting of suitably qualified social work directors, and so on.
In terms of the Amendment, however, the argument must relate to the making of a probation scheme, and here the argument is highly appropriate. If there is doubt about the operation of other parts of the Bill because of the multiplication of local authorities involved, there must be at least as much doubt about the wise operation of probation schemes by as many as 56 local authorities. Cooperation between local authorities is, therefore, necessary. More than that, we would hope that there could be amalgamation between local authorities.
6.30 p.m.
The House may be interested to know that, in Committee, we proposed from this side an ingenious method whereby, in certain circumstances, amalgamation between local authorities could be insisted upon, subject to the protection of inquiry. We left that point when the Minister told ss that he would hold consultations with the local authority organisations in Scotland to determine the extent to which voluntary amalgamations would take place. This would be an appropriate opportunity for the Minister to tell us about the progress of those consultations. I am disappointed that we have not had from him before now an account of the consultations. I said expressly to him in Committee that my hon. Friends and I would hope and expect to have a progress report from the Minister before we entered the Report stage, and that account has not been forthcoming.
If the Minister can report to us that voluntary amalgamations will be substantial in scope, it is possible that some of our doubts about the operation of the probation scheme would be reduced. In the absence of such an assurance, those doubts will remain. The co-operation which the hon. Gentleman seeks would help to some extent, but the large question would remain unanswered, and the argument on that larger question is one which we would prefer to deploy when we debate Amendment No. 20. Perhaps there will be an opportunity for the Minister to give the House an account of the progress of these important consultations.

Mr. Willis: I have taken the attitude during the passage of the Bill that in view of the forthcoming reorganisation of local government we should meanwhile interfere as little as possible with local services. My attitude towards the probation service is much the same, although I recognise that finally the probation service must go into the social work department. It is unfortunate that after we have spent 20 years building up the probation service, laying down qualifications and setting up special schemes of training we should throw it all overboard.

Mr. Speaker: The debate is becoming a little wide. We are at the moment discussing a specific Amendment.

Mr. Willis: Mr. Speaker, I am saying what I wish to preserve and what the Amendment seeks to preserve. To throw overboard all that has gone before and to say that the probation officer is nothing more than a social worker is not true. If it were true, we would have been wrong for 20 years. By placing upon local authorities responsibility to co-operate, the Amendment enables the position to be preserved. The Amendment does not go against the main provisions of the Bill, it merely questions the advisability of reorganising the service when within another four years it will again have to be reorganised. Such a reorganisation must have an undesirable effect upon the morale of the people in the service.
If the probation officer is absorbed into the social work department he will still be doing the work which he does as a probation officer. A probation officer will be doing the same work as he was doing prior to the passage of the Bill. The courts will require to be served; people released from prison will require to be attended; records will have to be kept. All these things will have to be done, and the man who was trained to carry out this work and who has been doing it will continue to do it.
In Lanark, there are 33 probation officers, who are now to be split up into six services. They have to serve the sheriff court in Lanark, and it might be necessary to send a man from each of those six authorities to the sheriff court if the court is dealing with cases from different burghs in the county. If the Amendment were accepted, this could be done by one probation officer and such a waste of manpower would be avoided.

Mr. John Robertson: Although, in essence, what my hon. Friend says is true, in practice there would never be five or six probation officers in any one of the sheriff courts in Lanarkshire.

Mr. Willis: I am suggesting that this is what could arise.

Mr. John Robertson: No, it could not.

Mr. Willis: I think that it could. Probation officers from different burghs could


be attending the sheriff court. This is a duplication and a waste of effort when under a combined scheme, it could be done by one officer in the same way as it is done at the present time. I have nothing against proceeding with the Bill, but at least as little dislocation as possible ought to be caused to existing services.
It is true of the other services—which is why I supported the inclusion of the large burghs—and it is true of the probation service. If we are to do this, the local authorities within a county area must come together to draw up a scheme. In this way, one of the most difficult problems in the Bill would be overcome, and to that extent the Amendment is a useful one. I tried to achieve something similar with children's panels, because to split them up and then two or three years later to reorganise them again would be to get the worst of all possible worlds.
For these reasons, I support the Amendment.

Mr. Millan: I appreciate the reasons why my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) has put down the Amendment in this way, although some of the points he made really went beyond what its effect would be. I am not suggesting that he was out of order, but that his interpretation of what the effect would be is well beyond what would be the case in practice. I think that a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends made the same mistake.
The basis for the concern of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends on this matter is the Government's decision to include the large burghs as well as the county councils as social work departments. This was discussed at great length in Committee. It does not arise directly from the Amendment, however, and I shall, therefore, not rehearse all the arguments again. The decision has been taken and the Government: want the large burghs as social work departments for the purposes of the Bill.
Similarly, I do not think that the Amendment raises the fundamental issue, at least not directly, of whether or not the probation service should be part of the social work department. I think that my hon. Friend really was raising that issue, but it is not specifically dealt with in this Amendment. Again, we dis-

cussed it at great length in Committee, and it is not for me now to rehearse the arguments once more.
But some of the expressions we have had in this debate as to the effect of incorporation of the probation service in the social work department have been quite exaggerated. For example, as has been pointed out, the probation service for children will have to go in whatever the arguments might be about the probation service for adults. That is accepted and is, indeed, inherent in Part III of the Bill.
For many local authorities in Scotland, the probation service will not be affected at all in so far as we are bringing it into the social work department. That applies in the four large cities and in the counties where there are not also large burghs. It is an exaggeration for my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) to talk about everything that has happened with the probation service in the last 20 years as being thrown overboard by what we are doing in this Clause.

Mr. Willis: My point was that the argument that the probation officer is just another social welfare officer who can be shifted about destroys all that we have been doing.

Mr. Millan: I have never suggested that the probation officer is just another social worker—a phrase which has a slightly pejorative ring about it—and that he should just be shifted about as though all his training and experience were irrelevant. But these matters were considered at considerable length in Committee and I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would not allow me to go over all the arguments again now. Nevertheless, I repeat that the phraseology used by my right hon. Friend is not an accurate way of reflecting my views of the probation service or its future in the social work department.
The Amendment would make it mandatory for the probation scheme to include arrangements for co-operation. The particular phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West is open to very wide interpretation. It could be interpreted narrowly or in a variety of ways. Obviously, what he has


in mind is that we should make it mandatory in effect for combinations of probation work to take place, and I understand from what he and others have said that this means in this context that there should be mandatory arrangements for the probation services to be combined in counties like Lanarkshire, where the effect of the Bill will be that the probation service will be distributed over a number of social work authorities.
I want to say what happened at the meeting I had with the local authority associations on 21st June, but I first make it clear that it is not right in principle to separate the probation service in this way. What we are doing in the Bill is bringing the service within the social work department. We are bringing a number of other services within it as well. It would be wrong to encourage social work authorities to combine for particular specific purposes as distinct from combining for all the purposes they take over in the new social work department.
All the value of having an integrated social service department, with a range of duties and responsibilities all placed within the one department, would go if the local authorities were to split it up and decide that the probation service might be combined with something else and the child welfare service with something else. If we are looking at varieties of combination between one authority and another, we should do so in the context of all the services that are taken into the social work department and not in the context of paying particular regard to having special arrangements for one of the services, whether it be the probation service or anything else. It was my strong impression at my meeting with the local authority associations that they would also take this approach to the question of combinations and amalgamations.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Before the hon. Gentleman comes to his discussions with the local authority associations, could he deal, for the benefit of those who did not serve on the Standing Committee, with the point raised by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) concerning the date as specified in subsection (2)?

Mr. Millan: As I recall, the date of commencement comes in Clause 90.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must resist temptations to discuss the whole Bill. We are on Amendment No. 18.

Mr. Millan: Perhaps I may quickly point out that the date of commencement comes towards the end of the Bill. I covered the point in Committee and perhaps the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) would care to look at what I said. It appears in c. 572 in the report of the 12th sitting of the Committee.
The meeting I had with the local authority associations arose out of discussions on Clause 1, when there was fairly general feeling in the Committee that the number of local authorities providing social work services should, in practice, be less than 56, which would be the number if every city, county and large burgh provided a separate service. I gave an assurance, which is relevant to the probation aspect, that I would discuss this with the local authority associations with a view to seeing what the possibility would be of achieving voluntary combinations of local authorities.
I met the representatives of the local authority associations on 21st June and had a frank and helpful discussion with them. Not surprisingly, the representatives of the associations felt quite strongly, as did most hon. Members on the Standing Committee, that it would be undesirable for the Secretary of State to take powers in the Bill to require local authorities to combine for these purposes. Therefore, I can say that the local authority associations would be much against the Amendment.
Naturally, the representatives I met could not commit any individual local authority as to what would happen once the Bill was implemented, but they were in agreement that, following its passage, the local authorities would be willing to enter discussions with their neighbours to explore the possibilities of voluntary combinations. Some of the representatives felt that the likelihood of voluntary combinations would be improved if the Government took the initiative and made positive suggestions to local authorities in certain areas where the Government felt that combinations would be most desirable. But they also felt that it would be preferable for any such


initiative to be delayed until after the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Government were known.
I am glad that the attitudes of the local authority associations towards the matter of combinations are close to the attitudes expressed today. My right hon. Friend feels quite satisfied, therefore, in the light of the discussions with the local authority associations, that there is no need to amend this provision in the way suggested by the Amendment. Both before the publication of the Royal Commission's Report but in particular after-wards, quite apart from any general exhortations the Government might make to local authorities to look at the question of voluntary combinations, we shall take the opportunity of bringing together particular local authorities for the purpose of discussing the possibility of their combination for the purposes of the Bill. We shall certainly take an initiative with the particular authorities where we think that would be most profitable.
I have dealt with this matter at some length and perhaps tested your patience more than a little Mr. Speaker, but this is an important Amendment. I promised that, on Report, I would give this report which is relevant to the probation service. I hope, with that explanation, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West will be willing to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Thomas Steele: Many of my hon. Friends have taken the discussion much wider than I did initially. That may have been my own fault. I was trying to say that I accepted the Bill as it is now and that the probation service would be incorporated in the new social work department. We had the key to this matter in my hon. Friend's reply when he said that the local authorities were not prepared to consider any combination until they had the report of the Royal Commission.

Mr. Millan: With respect, I did not say that. I said that once the report of the Royal Commission has been received it will be easier for all concerned, the Government as well as local authorities, to see what the ultimate pattern will be. I did not say that local authorities were not willing to consider this matter until the Royal Commission had reported.

Mr. Steele: That was my understanding. I apologise to my hon. Friend.

I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) got the same impression. In any event, it seems that this is the key. Just as the local authorities will consider the question of combinations after they receive the report of the Royal Commission, I say to my hon. Friend—and this is the warning that I gave him—that they will be reluctant to carry out the provisions of the Bill, because they will be anxious and concerned about the report of the Royal Commission.
This proposal would enable local authorities to put up schemes and, in the putting up of these schemes, the Secretary of State would be able to preserve the probation service as it is to co-operate with the new social work department. I think that this is possible.
In effect, we shall destroy the probation service, as we know it, and have the people in it incorporated into the new service with a grievance and a grudge. This is my feeling. Therefore, I am thinking about the administration of the new social service. I appreciate, as the Minister said, what we are doing in this Bill, but in this House we are dealing with theory. This is the idea; this is what we want to see done. But I visualise administrative problems arising from what is to happen. I genuinely felt that the Amendment would help and assist the introduction of the new proposals. I hope and trust that my hon. Friend will take the matter seriously.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 18, line 39, at end insert:
'holding such qualifications as the Secretary of State may prescribe, and every such officer may perform such other functions of the local authority under this Act as the Social Work Committee may direct'.
This is an Amendment to which my right hon. and hon. Friends attach considerable significance and take very seriously.
The House will be aware, from some of the speeches to which we have listened, that one of the major criticisms of this Bill in the eyes of many of us is the effect of Clause 27 abolishing the identity of the probation service as we know it today, a service which has worked very satisfactorily and with increasing efficiency over the years.
I accept, as we all have to accept, that the identity of that service has been abolished. It is being integrated, by the provisions of Clause 27, into the general social work department the new organisation for local authority social work. The purpose of the Amendment is to try to save something and to try to avoid some of the consequences which flow from that decision. Reference has already been made to some of these consequences, particularly by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele).
In our view, it is not correct to say that the probation officer is essentially the same as any other social worker. Many of the features of his training and experience are shared in common with many other social workers, but the statement contained in paragraph 28 of the White Paper, that
the main duty of the probation officer … is basically similar to that of other social workers ",
is a proposition which I do not accept, and it is obvious, from what has been said by the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson), and others, that they do not accept it.
I think that the essential feature of the probation officer is his close, intimate relationship with the court. He is primarily an officer of the court. Indeed, the whole development of probation as a method of treating delinquents and the development of the allied functions, such as the provision of social inquiry reports for the court, has largely depended on that close, intimate relationship, and, above all, on the trust and respect which the court has always had for the probation officer.
That arises because the court knows the man who is the probation officer, knows his training and experience, and has learned, through experience, to accept his judgment. I think it was with this consideration in mind that the Morison Committee, when reporting on this matter a few years ago, repeatedly referred to the probation service as essentially a social service of the courts and, on other occasions, as a court service. If the identity of this service is to be lost altogether, that confidence and trust and that close, intimate working relationship will be prejudiced, and, as a result, probation as a method of treating delinquents is liable to suffer.
Accepting, as we must, that the probation service, as we know it today, goes out of eistence and is merged into the social welfare organisation of a local authority, this Amendment seeks to preserve within that organisation the probation service as an identifiable group. In other words, we are seeking to say that they are all social workers and all members of the one administrative organisation—if administrative tidiness requires it, there it is —but that the people who will do the probation work will be those with the necessary training and qualifications—the group of people whom the courts will continue to know and trust. That is not to say—and I hope that the Amendment makes this clear—that the probation officer will be precluded from doing other useful social work within the department. Indeed, the Amendment specifies that.
I can understand the new organisation wanting the services of those officers in a wider sphere, but our primary concern is that they should remain as an identifiable group within the new social work organisation and that the confidence and mutual trust which has all along existed between probation officers and the courts should remain. If that link of confidence and trust is broken, the whole system as a method of treating delinquency is liable to be prejudiced, and I cannot imagine that any right hon. or hon. Member would desire that result.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. George Younger: I support what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Pent-lands (Mr. Wylie), and I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment as a genuine attempt at a compromise between two opposing views. He will recall that there were a good many of us on both sides of the Committee who were unhappy at the thought that the probation service as we have known it would become completely merged in the new social work department.
The Amendment is, as I say, a genuine attempt to introduce a compromise solution, for it would make it possible for the probation service still to keep its identity as a body of professional and technically qualified people doing a specialised job, a job which is very much orientated to the link of confidence


existing between the courts and our probation officers.
The Amendment would allow probation officers to retain that professional status and their link of confidence with the courts while at the same time bringing them under the general umbrella of the social work department and the director of social work. It offers a good compromise by which we could avoid disturbing the feelings of probation officers generally at the prospect of losing their separate professional status while at the same time still making it possible to bring in the benefits of the Bill.
The Amendment has been on the Notice Paper for some time now. I hope that the Minister has had time to consider it carefully and to realise that there is merit in the compromise solution which it offers. If, on the other hand, he has not had time to consider it fully, as, perhaps, he may not, I hope that he will at least say that he is prepared to look at it and consider whether such a compromise could be brought in at some stage.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I support the Amendment. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) said, it would enable the Secretary of State to appoint those who had the qualifications to continue in probation work, and it would thus give the advantage of the connection with the courts which these officials already have. It would be a considerable loss to disperse completely the present body of probation officers. The Amendment, 01 the other hand, would enable them to be identifiable so that they could be kept doing the job which they now know so well and in which they have great experience. There are not too many probation officers with experience in Scotland anyway, and they ought to be kept on the job in which they can be most useful.
The Amendment would enable probation officers to take on other work as well, as appropriate. It would thus give the kind of rationalisation which the Secretary of State seeks by the Bill. I hope that he will accept an arrangement of this kind.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: I support the Amendment. There is great concern throughout the country about the probation service. In

the past, the probation officer has been a trusted individual in our social services, trusted not only by the courts themselves and recognised by them for the inestimable benefit of the work which they do, but trusted, also, by the parents of those who, unfortunately, have to attend court and who have had tremendous help from probation officers.
There is a fear that it will be difficult to replace such officers. People have become accustomed to the services of the probation officer and of the probation service in general. There is a feeling that it will be difficult to fit the service into the new and larger organisation. Because of the very personal nature of the probation officer's work, the service as we now know it should be allowed to carry on as far as possible as it has in the past.
It seems that the main reason for the change is that it was thought necessary to bring all the services together under the new Bill. But there need be no difficulty in allowing the probation service to carry on and to co-operate as it has in the past with the other social services. There is not a great deal which is new in the Bill from this point of view. Most of the other work done in the past by various other bodies will continue, though more effectively, perhaps, in the future. My concern is that, in going about the country, I find great anxiety in people's minds about what will happen if the probation officer is no longer known in the community.

Mr. Dewar: I listened with interest to the hon. and learned Member for Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), and I accept at once that there is one sizeable difficulty raised by the Government's proposal, namely, that, rightly or wrongly, the sheriffs—this is certainly true of the Sheriff Substitutes Association—have considerable reservations about the loss of an identifiable probation service. Even though I regard their objections as mistaken, possibly too sweeping and in some cases rather alarmist, one must bear in mind that they are the views of people who will sit on the bench and have to decide whether to use the service.
The very fact that they have such doubts, which may well inhibit their free use of the service, is a matter to be taken


into consideration. For that reason alone, I have some sympathy with an attempt to produce a formula which will reassure the sheriffs and, no doubt, reassure a good number of other people who have the worries which the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) expressed.
For all that, however, I do not like the Amendment. As I said in another context a few minutes ago, I think that it is based upon a fundamental fallacy. I do not agree, for example, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) says that, given the concept of flexibility, if there is not a defined and separate training for the probation officer as distinct from the general run of social workers, we shall throw out everything we have worked for over the past 20 years.
A little while ago, the Minister said that to talk in terms of "just another social worker" was in some way derogatory. I do not accept that, and I certainly meant what I said in no derogatory sense. I tried to show that there was a good deal of common method, common philosophy and common type of work as between social workers and probation officers. I am open to correction, but I understand that there is now largely a common course followed by a child care officer and a probation officer. The refresher courses which the administration has been running for probation officers who came into the service before the training régime was instituted are shared courses as between probation officers and other groups of social workers. There are differences of emphasis in terms of attention to criminal regulations and the like, but in the basic course followed, the methods adopted and the type of problems dealt with I do not see a sharp differentiation.
I should be sorry if something were written into the Bill which militated against ultimate flexibility in the use of the social workers whom we have available. I accept that one will not suddenly switch all people doing probation work at the moment into a completely different sphere. That would be mad and quite inexcusable irresponsibility for the directors of the new

social work department. They must remain basically within their own sphere, and there must be a long period when they will be the backbone of the social workers attached to the court. It is possible for there to be some changeover, for example, with a responsible person who has been dealing with child care for a number of years. I see no reason why such a person should not be attached to perhaps a children's hearing, in conjunction with someone established in the probation service for some time.
It would be useful and part of the intentions of the Bill. Of course, we must have continuity, but it would be very sad if we wrote in statutory barriers to stop this kind of experimentation, this mobility within the social work department. It would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. We talked a good deal in Committee about the structural difficulties of the new organisation. This is only worth while if we can create the kind of social work structure which allows this interchange of duties where possible, where people are properly qualified. It would be a retrograde step to accept this Amendment although I accept the existence of the initial fears, expressed by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I join with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) at least in that I am very concerned about the attitude of the Sheriff Substitutes Association. I do not think, from what I have heard, that it is sufficient to say that it has strong reservations about this. I would say that its attitude is a good deal stronger than is implied by the word "reservation". This is a very important Amendment—I would argue that it is the most important Amendment. One of the most vital properties of a probation scheme is that it should enjoy the confidence of the courts—in the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), that there should be a close and intimate relationship.
There is real anxiety that such a relationship will be vitiated as a result of this Clause. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South said that the acceptance of the Amendment would lead to the erection of statutory barriers within the social work department. As my hon.


and learned Friend pointed out, this is precisely what it will not do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) said it does not erect firm statutory barriers.
On the whole, I would prefer to see probation officers excluded altogether from the social work department, but that is not what we are discussing. This Amendment would incorporate certain people within the social work department and require them to have special qualifications, recognised by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Dewar: I quite see that there is provision in the Amendment to allow the trained probation officer to do other work. It seems that there is a barrier the other way, in that a trained social worker engaged in child care cannot move in to help the court. This seems wrong.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I take the hon. Member's point, but do not think that the barrier would be as rigid in terms of the Amendment as he imagines, because the Amendment would leave it to the Secretary of State to define the qualifications which the person serving the court would need. We have to satisfy the very legitimate anxieties of the Sheriff Substitutes Association and the probation officers.
I have received a copy of the memorandum prepared by the National Association of Probation Officers in which it points out that:
The probation service in Scotland now only accepts for appointment persons who have been centrally selected and have completed a course of training approved by the Secretary of State. So far as possible the Association wishes to ensure that the standards of service to the courts and to persons supervised on behalf of the courts, are maintained within the new structure. In addition, it is essential, if the courts are to be encouraged to use probation, that the sheriffs and other sentencers should have confidence in the service provided by the local authority.
It is this last sentence which seems fundamental. I was very concerned to be told by a distinguished and experienced sheriff substitute that he would think twice before sentencing people to probation if this Clause went through un-amended. We have to take this seriously. If the sheriff substitutes do not have confidence in the probation system, the likelihood is that instead of sentencing people

to probation, they will sentence them to imprisonment—which is not what the Government seek to achieve through the Bill.
We have to bear in mind that in the past conditions of service in the probation department have been, broadly speaking, the same in Scotland and England, if the Clause is passed without this Amendment, conditions of service will be very different. It has been suggested that we might see—because there was a feeling that those who had previously been in the service were losing status as a result of the Clause—a movement of such people, South of the Border.
I do not suggest that these considerations would be eliminated if the Amendment is accepted, but it would certainly be a substantial improvement and I very much hope that the Amendment is accepted.

Mr. Lawson: This has been described as an attempt to help. I have been interested in this argument for a considerable time, although I apologise to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), because I had to leave the Chamber for a few minutes. This has been described as an attempt to help, in that it refers to special qualifications that the Secretary of State may lay down for a probation officer. It is true that the Amendment says that he will be to perform other services. On the other hand, other people without this special qualification will not be permitted to fulfil the rôle of the probation officer.
The Amendment draws a clear distinction, and the probation officer is established as a category with certain characteristics, clearly marked off from other forms of social workers. The issue is whether we are to have a certain set of officers, based primarily on the courts, as servants of the courts, in distinction to other officers primarily serving local authorities.
If we were to decide that there should be this clear distinction, then the probation officer ought to be taken out of the Bill altogether. I would go further and venture to say that he ought not to be paid for by the local authorities, because as a servant of the court he would be outwith the functions of a local authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow,


Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) was concerned about a comprehensive service. If we are to have a comprehensive service the probation officer must form part of it.
If I were satisfied that the probation officers as a whole were determined to remain based upon the courts, I would agree with the argument advanced, and even to taking probation officers out of the Bill altogether. But I am not satisfied. I have seen plenty of evidence in the probation service itself for a substantial body of opinion that they should be involved in the multiplicity of services under the heading of social work. There should be a bias towards the courts, certainly, but I do not agree that there is evidence that the probation worker thinks this. His organisation says this officially, but my findings show that many individual officers want to fulfil the diverse functions of social service workers. They will, naturally, also render these functions in relation to the courts, where necessary, but they should have this wider function.
Since the Bill is designed to bring about a comprehensive social work service, it should include the services to the courts, which are not designed primarily to punish. There is a bias in the probation service towards reclaiming, redeeming and re-educating people rather than punishing them, which is still the function of the court. Therefore, I decided to support those lines of development which brought the service within the comprehensive social work service which the Bill would bring about. Thus, it would be a mistake to inject a provision to make the probation officer distinctly different from other social workers, and to say that he alone can fulfil that service because he alone has those qualifications.

Mr. James Davidson: I have been following the hon. Member's argument with great interest, since this is the key Amendment to the whole Bill. I apologise for not having been present earlier, because of other reasons. Is it not possible to have a comprehensive service, which the hon. Gentleman is arguing for, and yet provide that probation officers must have some additional qualification? A parallel is that officers in the Royal Navy may be perfectly competent executive officers—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions should not be speeches.

Mr. Davidson: —but must have a watchkeeping certificate before he can take charge of a ship at sea. Surely a probation officer can have extra qualifications?

Mr. Lawson: I should have thought that the local authority, whose duty it is to provide officers to render this service to the courts, would see that the people involved were suitably qualified. The Amendment would write in the express condition that the Secretary of State should draw up qualifications and, presumably, that only the people with those qualifications would be able to render this service. It is admitted that they might render other services, but it is suggested that no one else would be able to render this service because only these people would have the qualifications.
This is an attempt to make a clear distinction in law between that type of officer, called the probation officer, and others—

Sir Myer Galpern: But surely the same distinctions. apply in the teaching profession? If a teacher wants an additional qualification to teach the deaf or the blind, those qualifications are available, and only those with the required qualifications are empowered by the Secretary of State to carry out that kind of educational work.

Mr. Lawson: I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to discuss the teaching profession and its different qualifications and payments. We are discussing the setting up of a comprehensive service. The Amendment would make it less comprehensive than it is intended to be—

Sir M. Galpern: Teaching is a comprehensive service.

Mr. Lawson: It is for this reason that the Amendment should be rejected.

Mr. Ross: We should not apologise for having taken some time over this Amendment, because, right from the publication of the White Paper and all the discussions of this, attention has been paid—probably to the sacrifice of attention to other branches of the social work service—to the probation service. It is a


tribute to that service, its work and its contact not only with the courts but with local authorities that it has had this ready response to its pleas for special consideration in the discussions.
I would say to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) that the probation service in Scotland is different from that in England, which is a centralised Home Office service. In Scotland, it is a local authority service. Therefore, we should be worried about the changes which we make. If we are to assert the rights which we already have to legislate, let us take some pride in the fact that we can be different.
Hon. Members opposite, as they did earlier, have tried to take the probation service out of the Bill. They are not doing exactly that this time, because earlier discussions in Committee cannot now be repeated. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr Wylie) admitted honestly, as he must, that the probation service will be part of the new social work service, but what they want is that I shall so lay down their qualifications that these officers shall be seen to be within but apart, and that they and they alone shall continue to do one kind of work, although hon. Members say that the social work committees, notwithstanding the Secretary of State, should be able to allow them to do other work as well.
I do not doubt that, if we accepted this, we should destroy the new conception of the social work service. This is what would happen. There would be divisions within the service. If this is true of the probation officer, is it not equally true of the children's officer and the welfare officer?

Mr. Wylie: No.

Mr. Ross: But their work will, possibly, be encroached upon by the probation officer in his new light. This is a misunderstanding of our whole purpose, which is to get away from this narrow specialisation by different people who deal, mainly, with the same kind of situation—and, very often, with the same people. It is people we are concerned about, not the courts but the people in the courts; it is those people's background, in their families.

Mr. Wylie: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree, however, that the probation officer is part of the penal system? It is because of his connection with the courts that he is in a different position from anyone else. It is not suggested that he is better or worse than anyone else, but he is in a different position.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Ross: He is not part of the penal system. He is certainly involved in it, but so are many children's officers and welfare officers, who often provide the probation officer with some of the background which goes into his report. We have arrived at the appreciation that, instead of three or four different people in different guises visiting the same family, we should give this job to one department. Instead of three or four specialisms, we shall get one much more rounded specialism in the end.
Probation officers will play a very important part in this, because of their experience. Far from their status being lowered, as has been suggested, I think their status and their career opportunities will be considerably enhanced.
The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) said that the work would be the same as that which was done in the past. If I were satisfied that the right kind of work and the right amount of work was being done in the social field in Scotland, we would not have needed the Bill at all. But there are great gaps in Scotland, not only in rural areas, where the social work that needs to be done is not being done. Anyone who looks at the statistics for juvenile delinquency and of prisoners who, after their discharge, return to the courts and thence to prison has no reason for complacency or for thinking that we have reached the end of the road. We have only just started to pay the kind of attention which we should be paying, and we are starting at the right point.
I was shocked to hear the hon. Member for South Angus suggest that some sheriff substitute—he did not name him; he said that he was an important one, an experienced one, and all the rest of it— would hesitate to use probation if this was passed. I hope that sheriff substitutes will hesitate to apply any sentence, but only in relation to the adequacy or appropriateness of that sentence to the


case in question. To make such a statement and not to say who made it is not fair on all the other sheriff substitutes who will apply the law and who will use the facilities which will be there.
In the beginning, undoubtedly, as we take over here, it will be the same probation officers who will be used. Subsection (2) says:
For the purposes of the foregoing subsection every local authority shall, after consultation with the sheriffs having jurisdiction in their area, prepare a scheme and submit it by such date, as he may require, to the Secretary of State for his approval.
In the light of that, in the light of the kind of experience already in being, and in the light of what has already been said as to how this will develop, it was wrong of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the sheriff substitutes will hesitate to consider probation as an appropriate condition to make in relation to the treatment of any case.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: This comment was made to me by a sheriff substitute. I have not obtained his permission to mention his name, and, therefore, I do not think I should do so. He said to me, however, that if the probation officer did not have the confidence of the court he would think twice about sentencing somebody who came before him to probation.

Mr. Ross: That is not what the hon. Gentleman said earlier. He said that the sheriff substitute would hesitate to use probation if this was passed as it is. He said nothing about confidence.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The same thing.

Mr. Ross: It is not the same thing. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that, before a scheme has ever been discussed with that sheriff substitute, determined, modified, seen by me and by him, and approved by me, it will be unsatisfactory? The chances are, with the facilities which will be made available, that the decisions of the court will be even better than they are at present. The hon. Gentleman should not use phrases like that, bring in unnamed people to support such a contention, and then change his mind about what he said when he is challenged.
This is a fundamental Amendment, because it cuts right across what we hope

to achieve by this completely new and pioneering scheme that we are introducing for Scotland. The Bill, including this part, has been lauded, not just in Scotland, but in other parts of Britain and elsewhere. Interest has been shown in it as something that others would like to strive towards. I know that we are taking a pioneering step, but it is not one which has been taken lightly. We went into this very fully before we issued the White Paper. Since then, we have had full discussions with everyone concerned and have modified our views in the light of those full discussions. We have had full discussions in Committee.
I assure the House that I, too, give my praise to the probation officers. I can remember pressing the Conservative Government to do something about the Morrison Report. If I had thought that we would destroy the service and not replace it with something which contained what was of value within their work and build upon that, with a greater breadth of social science and experience, I would not have introduced the Bill.
Taking the whole Clause, in view of what we are doing in relation to the schemes, and in view of the kind of people who will undertake this work, I think that it would be wrong to do as the hon. Gentleman suggested and condemn the thing in advance. We must assume that the directors of social work will not send people into the courts who have no knowledge of what they are doing. In the beginning, it will be the probation officers that will play a very important part in this, because they have a width of experience which is of value outside the narrow field of probation. As time passes the same may well be true of others. It would be undesirable to create within the department of the director of social work officers who might appear to have some special statutory status which, indeed, the director himself does not have.
Lastly, when the new departments have taken over probation responsibilities, the best arrangement is that the work should continue to be carried out mainly by the officers who are now qualified and have experience in this work, but it is not desirable at the very beginning here, and in something which will last as long as the Bill lasts, to preclude the possibility that officers with other skills might, under


supervision, acquire probation experi-and share in the work. What we are creating, and in which probation officers will play a leading part, is virtually a new profession and one which probation officers, with their experience, will be glad to be members of. I am sorry about some of the things which have been said, mainly by the hon. Member for South Angus. On the whole, the attitude to this subsection has been fairly objective. I cannot do other than ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. MacArthur: When debating an earlier Amendment the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) complimented the Secretary of State by saying that he was obstinate. I do not think that we have ever seen the right hon. Gentleman more obstinate than he has been tonight.

Mr. Ross: Stick around.

Mr. MacArthur: The right hon. Gentleman said, in effect, that the Kilbrandon Report, the Morrison Report, the probation officers, the sheriffs and, I suspect, most hon. Members are wrong. The person who is right is the right hon. Gentleman. As I listened to him I was reminded of the old story, the last line of which goes, "Everybody's out of step except 'oor Wullie". On the Front Bench opposite, in the guise of the Secre-tary of State, sits 'oor Wullie, as obstinate as ever.
It might be as well to remind the House of three background facts which we must consider when deciding our view towards the Amendment. The first is that the Kilbrandon Report, which the right hon. Gentleman described as the Genesis of the Bill—

Mr. Ross: Mr. Ross indicated dissent.

Mr. MacArthur: One hon. Member did; Kilbrandon's effect on the Bill is enormous—made it clear that Kilbrandon envisaged an independent adult probation service.

Mr. Ross: Mr. Ross indicated dissent.

Mr. MacArthur: The right hon. Gentleman may disagree. That was the interpretation which I and a great many others put on the Report. The right hon. Gentleman is, therefore, wrong.

Mr. Millan: Mr. Millan rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman goes out of order, he will be wrong The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) must address his remarks to the Amendment.

Mr. MacArthur: The second point to remember is that the Government's decision to bring the probation service within the social work department was a narrow decision. Indeed, the White Paper said:
The Government's conclusion is that, on balance, it would be better if all the functions of the probation service in Scotland were undertaken by the local authority social work department.
The two key words were "on balance".
The third point to remember is that that narrow decision was taken when the Government believed that the large burghs should not be in the Bill as administrative authorities. In other words, there would have been, at the time of the White Paper, many fewer social work departments than envisaged in the Bill. I believe that if the Government had decided to introduce large burghs, thus creating 56 possible local authorities, they might have taken a very different view about the probation service because the balance would have been the other way round.
There has been some discussion of the rôle of the probation officer. Is he or is he not an officer of the court? What matters is the fact that probation officers see themselves as officers of the court. I believe that the courts see probation officers as officers of the court, too. That is critical to the Amendment.
Everything in the end comes back to the trust and confidence which the courts have in the person appearing before them as the probation officer. We say that it is necessary, if that trust and confidence is to be retained, for the probation officer to be identified within the social work department and to continue that rôle, within the terms of the Amendment, into the future. We advanced this argument on Second Reading and we continue to advance it. We believe that this is the only way that we can be absolutely certain that this essential confidence will be held. If it is not held we will reach the stage when probation might not be invoked so readily by the courts, and that would be a serious loss to our penal system.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes, 107, Noes, 138.

Division No. 282.]
AYES
[7.45 p.m.


Astor, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Awdry, Daniel
Hawkins, Paul
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Peel, John


Balniel, Lord
Hiley, Joseph
Percival, lan


Biffen, John
Hill, J. E. B.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Blaker, Peter
Hirst, Geoffrey
Prior, J. M, L.


Body, Richard
Holland, Philip
Pym, Francis


Brewis, John
Hunt, John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hutchison, Michael Clerk
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
lremonger, T. L.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Silvester, Frederick


Bullus, Sir Eric
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Burden, F. A.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, West)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stainton, Keith


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stodart, Anthony


Clegg, Walter
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Currie, G. B. H.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dalkeith, Earl of
MacArthur, lan
Teeling, Sir William


Dance, James
Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Temple, John M.


Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Tilney, John


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
McMaster, Stanley
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maude, Angus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Mawby, Ray
Waddington, David


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Fortescue, Tim
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Miscampbell, Norman
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Monro, Hector
Wright, Esmond


Gower, Raymond
Montgomery, Fergus
Wylie, N. R.


Grant-Ferris, R.
More, Jasper
Younger, Hn. George


Gresham Cooke, R.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)



Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Murton, Oscar
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Gurden, Harold
Neave, Airey
Mr. Anthony Grant.




NOES


Allen, Scholefield
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Loughlin, Charles


Archer, Peter
Fernyhough, E.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McCann, John


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Ford, Ben
MacColl, James


Beaney, Alan
Forrester, John
MacDermot, Niall


Binns, John
Fowler, Gerry
Macdonald, A. H.


Bishop, E. S.
Galpern, Sir Myer
McGuire, Michael


Blackburn, F.
Gardner, Tony
Mackie, John


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gourlay, Harry
Mackintosh, John P.


Booth, Albert
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Boston, Terence
Gregory, Arnold
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Manuel, Archie


Brooks, Edwin
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Marks, Kenneth


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mendelson, J. J.


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce


Carmichael, Neil
Hannan, William
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Chapman, Donald
Harper, Joseph
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Coe, Denis
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Dalyell, Tam
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Newens, Stan


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hooley, Frank
Oakes, Gordon


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian


Delargy, Hugh
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Orbach, Maurice


Dempsey, James
Howie, W.
Orme, Stanley


Dewar, Donald
Hoy, James
Oswald, Thomas


Dickens, James
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Doig, Peter
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Dunn, James A.
Hunter, Adam
Palmer, Arthur


Dunnett, Jack
Hynd, John
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jones, J. ldwal (Wrexham)
Park, Trevor


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Eadie, Alex
Lawson, George
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Ellis, John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Pentland, Norman


Ennals, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Ensor, David
Lomas, Kenneth
Rankin, John




Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Silverman, Julius
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Slater, Joseph
Watkins, David (Consett)


Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Small, William
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Spriggs, Leslie
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Swingler, Stephen
Woof, Robert


Ryan, John
Taverne, Dick
Yates, Victor


Sheldon, Robert
Thornton, Ernest



Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Urwin, T. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Varley, Eric G.
Mr. Alan Fitch and




Mr. J. D. Concannon

Clause 31

RESTRICTION ON PROSECUTION OF CHILDREN FOR OFFENCES

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 20, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
(2) The case of any child liable to prosecution in respect of any act committed or omission made, but against whom proceedings have not been instituted before the commencement of this Act, shall be dealt with in accordance with the law as in force after the said commencement.
This is largely a drafting Amendment. It clarifies the position of children who have committed offences but against whom proceedings have not been instituted at the date when Clause 31 comes into operation. It provides that they must then be dealt with in accordance with the law as it will be after Clause 31 comes into operation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 35

PROVISIONS AS TO TIME, PLACE, PRIVACY AND NOTIFICATION OF CHILDREN'S HEARINGS

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 21, line 33, after 'hearing', insert:
',or shall authorise the exclusion of bona fide representatives of a newspaper or news agency.'.
This is in discharge of an undertaking given in Committee that I would move an Amendment on Report to say that bona fide representatives of the Press would be able to attend children's hearings.
I do not want to go over the arguments on either side as to whether the Press should be able to be present at these hearings. I made a statement about that in Committee, and my impression was that it had the general agreement of the Committee. It is in discharge of what I said there that I move this Amendment.
It does not in any way affect the prohibition on the publication of proceedings or the identification of children, which are fully provided for in Clause 58. But it gives the Press the opportunity of being present at children's hearings and, on the balance of public advantage, I am sure that this is the right decision.
The only other comment that I would make about it is that admitting the Press does not in any way militate against the general principle that the number of people to be present at hearings should be kept to a minimum. Certainly it is not our intention that children's hearings should be turned into some kind of public session with large numbers of people ranged in front of the child appearing before the hearing. That can all be dealt with in the arrangements which we shall make for the hearings, the way in which they are organised, the premises in which they meet, the seating arrangements, and the rest of it.
The balance of public advantage is in favour of the Press being in attendance at hearings, provided always that we keep the prohibition on publication which we have in a later Clause. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be acceptable to the House, because it does very little different from what the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, does.

Mr. Dewar: This is a difficult question, and, although my hon. Friend says that he thinks that the Amendment interprets the feeling in Committee, that is a slight essay into the optimistic. The Committee rather stumbled on the fact, to its surprise, and had a clear and fair statement from my hon. Friend in which he said that he would invite the comments of the committee. But, owing to procedural niceties as interpreted by the Chairman, there was no opportunity to take the Committee's views.
Having spoken to one or two of my colleagues about it today, it is clear that there is some anxiety about the decision which has been taken. We recognise that


it is one of the great principles, to which we pay lip service at least, that justice must be seen to be done, and it is right as a general rule that the Press should have access to judicial proceedings at every level unless there is good reason for its exclusion.
However, I wonder if children's hearings are suitable for Press entry. After all, if it is a matter of safeguarding the rights of the child appearing before a hearing, it seems to me that they are adequately safeguarded already by the child's right to have present his parents or anyone else whom he wishes to speak for him. In addition, there is provision in the Bill for a member of the Council on Tribunals or of the Scottish Committee of that Council to attend. If there is an abuse or miscarriage of justice or a case where the people intimately concerned feel that they are getting a raw deal, they can go to the Press and turn the spotlight of publicity on events.
It is important that we should keep the informal atmosphere at the hearings. I accept that there will not necessarily be hordes of Press representatives present, but the very fact that the Press has the right of entry and that the local Press may carry, even without names, details of what happened, or at least a general picture of what happened, at any given hearing could militate against the kind of informal inquiry in depth which the Bill attempts to achieve.
There is no stated charge at a children's hearing, no facts, in the commonly accepted sense of the word, to be reported, and I am not sure that from the point of view of the Press there is the normal case for a right of entry. I do not want to press my argument and I would not like to give the impression that I should like these hearings to be some sort of Star Chamber at a much lower level, some sort of judicial hearing at which the public eye was not allowed entry so that there was room for bureaucratic abuse, but I still think that on balance the admission of the Press is not a meaningful safeguard, and I am not sure that it is desirable.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. MacArthur: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) and I have much

sympathy with what he says. My own feeling is that on balance the Press should be admitted, with the normal restrictions of which the Under-Secretary has reminded us. I am not comfortable about the prospect of enlarging the number of people present at a children's hearing, for the very reason which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South has advanced. At the same time, in view of the restrictions on publication, it is unlikely that hordes of Press men will invade a children's hearing, and I doubt whether more than one or two representatives of the Press would normally be present.
But if the Press is excluded, there will inevitably be a risk that the hearings will be thought to be meeting in secret. Embarking as we are on a challenging experiment, we ought not to give any impression that these hearings are to be held in secret. There will be wide interest about the way in which they are conducted, and public interest in them should be encouraged and protected by the right of the Press to be present.
There is a further reason. During our debates in Committee, the Opposition, and many hon. Members opposite shared some of our fears, expressed our anxiety that the rights of the child should be protected as much at a children's hearing as they are in the present juvenile courts. While we all welcome the informality of the children's hearings, there still lurks a doubt in our minds that that informality could lead, quite unconsciously, to some abuse of the child's judicial rights. The Press is a great champion of the individual and the rights and liberties of the individual.

Mr. James Dempsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give some evidence to substantiate his claim that the absence of the Press would lead to such unfortunate deductions by the general public?

Mr. MacArthur: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right and I think that he probably is, but there will be great interest in these children's hearings and it is reasonable that the general public should have some knowledge of the way in which they are conducted, a knowledge which the Press would provide. I see nothing wrong with that; indeed, I see everything right with it.
It would be as well for the independent eye of the Press to be on children's hearings in order to ensure that the liberty of the child and the rights of the child are properly protected within the atmosphere of informality which is such an important aspect of this part of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Millan: The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) made a valid point when he spoke of the genuine public interest in these hearings. The public as a whole should have the opportunity of knowing how these hearings are conducted. It is extremely difficult to devise any means of allowing them to know if the Press is excluded. I accept that the Press would not normally be interested in children's hearings, but it will be very interested in the initial stages when the panels come into operation. However, I imagine that it will not often be interested afterwards, although it is important to establish the principle that it has the right to be present if it wants.

Mr. Dempsey: It would be unwise to take such a step. How many hon. Members who have spoken on this subject have ever sat in a juvenile court and tried young people? There is nothing secretive about these proceedings. I am one of those who for their sins are magistrates, and I take my share of court work during the Recesses. I have often had to try young people, but the parents, the probation officer and the representatives of the authorities are present. There is no question of a secret trial, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire.

Mr. MacArthur: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand. It is the impression of what happens that matters, and I fear that if the Press is excluded, the impression of what happens in an entirely new structure, which is what we are talking about, may be that something secret is going on. That would be avoided by the presence of the Press, but that is the smallest of my list of arguments.

Mr. Dempsey: I cannot think of anything more terrifying for a young first offender than to be in the presence of a

large number of people. It is frightening. One has to appreciate the excitement and almost the terror of the young first offender with all these individuals looking on and listening to an account of some mistake or idiosyncrasy which he has committed as a juvenile in his local town or village. Having the general public present would not contribute to the success of these courts. The Press is not needed. Many of these young persons will have committed an offence for the first time. They do not want to be headlined in the Press and to have their names absorbed by the many curiously minded people in our communities. If the Press is present, it naturally has a job to do.

Mr. MacArthur: Reporting of that type would be expressly prohibited.

Mr. Dempsey: That is just the difficulty. It is difficult to draw a demarcation line between what journalists shall report and what they shall omit. That is why it is important for those in charge of such a court to issue a statement to make sure that the right type of report, a report which is objective and sensible and in the interests of the young offender, appears in the local Press. That is why I am apprehensive.
It may be thought that I am a little prejudiced because I have operated under this system for many years, but it has been tried and found to be successful, and that is why I am scared of the possibility of the Press being present at these juvenile panels and reporting ad lib and indiscreetly about the decisions. The journalist has a job to do. He is inclined to pander to sensationalism. This is the great danger. It is his bread and butter, he must justify his existence. Once we admit the Press we shall have difficulty in laying down conditions as to how its members shall operate—what they shall report and what they shall not, and how they shall conduct themselves.
My right hon. Friend should have second thoughts about admitting the Press, especially to panels of this nature. These panels are trying young children who have committed offences for the first time. If these children are given adverse publicity in the Press it will have a very bad effect on them. My right hon. Friend should have another look at this question.

Mr. Ross: I had hoped that it would not be necessary for me to intervene. My hon. Friend has it all wrong. He says that he is a magistrate and is talking from experience. At the moment, the Press are allowed into any court of which he is a magistrate.

Mr. Dempsey: I have never seen a member of the Press in my court in my life.

Mr. Ross: That may be so. The Press may not be interested. But they have the right to be there, just as they have in juvenile courts.
I was because we were departing from the juvenile court practice that we were concerned, for the reasons expressed by everyone who has spoken, whether or not we should say "No" to this one. If we said "No" there would be a danger that something was being concealed from the public. It is because we are confident that the Press will work within the limits laid down in Clause 58, and because we have the experience of Sections 45 and 52 of the Children and Young Persons (Scoltand) Act, 1957, which limits reporting, that we decided, on balance, that it was right to allow access to the Press.
I am sure that members of the Press will behave properly. They know that they can do great danger by bad reporting. We have no reason to fear anything like that happening. I hope that I have allayed the fears of my hon. Friend. We are giving no more rights than the Press has at present. Its members have exercised their duties properly and carefully, and I am sure that they will continue to do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 37

REPORTS OF CASES OF CHILDREN WHO MAY REQUIRE COMPULSORY MEASURES OF CARE AND THE INTERIM DETENTION OF SUCH CHILDREN IN PLACES OF SAFETY.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 23, line 20, after '1937', insert:
'or any offence under section 21(1) of that Act'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): It might be convenient to take

also Amendment 169, in page 79, line 21, column 3, at beginning insert:




In section 21(2), the words from 'may take' to the end of the subsection.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Ross: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Clause provides that,
A constable or any person authorised by any court or by any justice of the peace may take to a place of safety any child in respect of whom any of the offences mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 has been or is believed to have been committed …
The Amendment adds a reference to Section 21 of the 1937 Act, which makes it an offence for vagrants to prevent children from receiving education. The Amendment confers the power of arrest and the taking of a child to a place of safety. It is desirable to transfer this power to the machinery laid down in Part III so that steps can be taken to bring it before the children's hearing, as appropriate. This addition is accordingly made to the Clause and the reference to taking a child to a place of safety is delegated by an Amendment to Schedule 8.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 44

DISPOSAL OF CASE BY CHILDREN'S HEARING OTHER THAN BY DISCHARGE OF REFUSAL

Amendment made: No. 27, in page 28, line 37, at end insert:
',and the place may be a place in England or Wales where arrangements have been made in that behalf.—[Mr. Ross.]

Mr. Dewar: I beg to move Amendment No, 26, in page 28, line 37, at end insert:
() Subject to the provisions of this part of this Act a children's hearing where, after consideration of his case they decide that such action is appropriate, may impose on a child or his parents—

(a) a fine which shall not exceed £50 sterling,
(b) any order for repayment by way of restitution for damage done to any other person,
(c) an obligation to find caution as to his future good behaviour.

The Amendment refers to the sanctions which will be available to the newly constituted children's panels. This is a matter


of substance because it is necessary to ensure that we have the right selection methods for the panels and that the members are properly trained. Their discretion is fundamental to the sanctions imposed in Part III.
If we are to give them a wide discretion it should be matched with wide powers. In Committee I said that the powers were at present limited, but the Minister said that they were not. In that they are extremely serious for the individual in terms of committal to residential accommodation or supervision there if. a wide discretion open to the children's panels, but they are limited in the sense that they are narrow. The Amendment gives them powers to impose fines and various other penalties where appropriate.
The matter of fines was argued at length on pages 16 and 17 of the Kilbrandon Report. The Under-Secretary agrees that it would be wrong to impose upon a parent a fine because of the misdemeanour of a child, but as the Minister will accept, for some period—at least until 1972, people between the ages of 15 and 16 will be appearing before children's panels, and will be working and perhaps earning substantial pay packets.
The present plan envisages the school leaving age being raised in 1972, and this will largely eliminate this circumstance arising, but it is possible that Government priorities will change, as they have in the past. Even Governments can change. It may be considerably later than 1972 before substantial wage earners cease to appear at children's hearings. In paragraph 27 the Kilbrandon Report said:
While such research studies as have been made of the effectiveness of different methods of treatment are necessarily subject to qualification, there is reason to think … that lining is on the whole not an effective method of treatment in relation to wage-earners.
On the time scale that we are working on, this alone justifies having second thoughts about methods of fining.
There are many occasions when it is appropriate to impose a fine upon a parent. In Committee the Minister said that
a fine on a parent had really very little to do with the function of the children's hearing which is concerned with the treatment

of the child."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 26th June, 1968, c. 500.]
It may be that in general there is validity in this argument, but I am sure that the Minister will accept that it would be wrong to look upon a child as a unit outwith its family background and context.
In Committee, when talking about the contributions made by a parent towards the cost of maintaining a child in an approved school the Under Secretary said
We want always to maintain the parental responsibility and the parental interest in the child, and it is undeniable to allow a parent to get the idea that when a child is taken into care he is no longer responsible in any way. This is not the only way of bringing his responsibilities home to him but it could be a part of that and it is important that we maintain it in the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 27th June, 1968, c. 564.]
I accept that the context is very different, but the point is well made. There may be circumstances when the children's panel thinks that parental responsibility would be brought home if a fine were imposed.
There is the question of a gap which appears to have emerged in the range of penalties which can be imposed and the circumstances in which a juvenile can be arrainned before a panel or court— what the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) called in Committee an apparent lacuna.
It is quite true and fair to say that under Clause 31 the Lord Advocate may recommend that prosecutions should be instituted for specific offences, but that can be done only in the High Court or the sheriffs court, which would be inappropriate for comparatively minor offences.
There might well be occasions when offences are committed when there is no question of the proper answer being a continuing period either of residential accommodation or of supervision but in which the procurator fiscal or the authorities, for their own reasons, having tried rebukes, police conciliation methods, and so on, feel that a sharp reminder of the law should be administered. If that is so, they cannot go to the juvenile court because they will no longer exist. It would be ridiculous to go the Sheriffs' court, because that would be making a mountain out of a molehill. They could not go to the children's hearings because


they could not recommend a suitable penalty.
The National Association of Probation Officers has drawn my attention to a fact which I did not know, namely, that in the recent White Paper for England and Wales entitled "Children in Trouble", Cmnd. 3601, the Government proposed the retention of court procedures for certain offenders over the age of 14. It was suggested that criminal proceedings would be possible when:
the young person appears not to be in need of sustained support or treatment, for the nature of the offence and his home circumstances suggest that a court appearance and a simple deterrent, e.g., a fine, would be appropriate".
If the White Paper finds that case to be proven, it is worth considering it when we are dealing with the Scottish situation.
The proposal to find caution for future good behaviour is recommended in paragraph 159 of the Kilbrandon Report. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) said that in his experience it was often useful for the parent to have his or her hand strengthened in the domestic scene by some such device of this nature. It would rarely be used, but it might be useful to have this power in reserve. If we trust the discretion of the children's panels, we should put the widest possible variety of weapons at their disposal.
Finally I have suggested restitution. There is a tremendous case for saying that mehtods of dealing with people who appear before the children's panel should allow for a great deal of imagination and flexibility. Some cases in which damage may have been done may fall into the general category of vandalism and it may be right that the panel should be in a position to say that it would take a very different view of the circumstances if it were able to ensure that some sort of restitution, some effort to undo the damage done, would be made by those who appeared before it.
In short, I am anxious that the public should see the new children's hearings machinery which is being erected as being flexible and able to deal with the cases which come before the hearings. We have all been worried by the attitude which has often manifested itself in general debates about juvenile delinquency

in Scotland in the last month or two. Prominent spokesmen, particularly those representing local authorities, sadly, seem to think that we can deal with violence by violence—almost an Old Testament attitude towards the juvenile delinquent and his treatment. The Government are trying, rightly, to shift the emphasis to proper treatment, but if they are to win, and if they are to convince the public that the machinery will be effective, they must allow imagination and flexibility in the approach of the juvenile panels. I hope that the Government will be prepared to think about this matter.

Mr. Millan: The Amendment raises a number of very important and interesting points. It is technically faulty. I should not normally make very much of that, but it is difficult to see, even if we accepted its principle, how we could insert it in the Bill at this late stage. As I said in Committee, it is a pity that we did not have a debate there on this specific Amendment, because it would have been useful to go over and elaborate the various considerations involved and the ideas which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) has put forward.
The question of fines was dealt with at some length by the Kilbrandon Committee, which came to the conclusion that it would not be appropriate to give the children's hearings the power of imposing a fine. It did that for a number of reasons, but particularly because it felt that a fine was specifically a punishment whereas the children's hearings were not concerned with sanctions which can be looked upon as punishments.
My hon. Friend mentioned the question of a short, sharp sanction. But the purpose of the hearings is not, at least in the normal circumstance, concerned with short, sharp sanctions. They will be concerned with cases in which there is a continuing need for supervision and treatment of the children who come before them. That is absolutely basic to the principle on which the hearings operate.
One of the dangers of giving the hearings the opportunity to impose a fine is that this could be looked upon by the hearings as a convenient way of imposing a sanction without considering basically the problems of the child appearing before them. That would be a very great


pity. I do not think that a parallel with what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary may be proposing for England and Wales stands up, because that is in the context of an entirely different concept, involving different age groups and procedures. It is unlikely that we shall get from the English White Paper any guide to what we should do in Scotland.
It is true that in the case of wage earners there is an effectiveness about lining in many cases which is indisputable. But the quotation which my hon. Friend made, which came from a Report of the Scottish Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders, was not specifically directed to young people; it was directed to offenders as a whole. I doubt very much whether even with young wage earners that proposition is as true and widespread as it might be among older offenders. The wage earner whom my hon. Friend has in mind—the 15 to 16 year old—is a temporary phenomenon, because after the school-leaving age has been raised that category of young person coming before the children's hearings will no longer exist.
My hon. Friend proposes that we should put into the Bill something which would go well beyond 1972 and also well beyond the child who happened to be a wage-earner, which would impinge on the child who is not a wage-earner and would, therefore, take the form of imposing a fine not on the child but, in the vast majority of cases, a fine on his parents.
We have been careful in the Bill not to give the children's hearings any kind of power over parents in the sense of punishment. The treatment procedures available to the children's hearings are exclusively for children and young persons. They have nothing to do with imposing sanctions on the parent. It would be wrong to impose sanctions on parents in this rather indirect way by allowing a panel to impose a fine on the child.
Restitution was also considered by the Kilbrandon Committee, which came to the conclusion that it should not have statutory sanction. It will, of course, be open to the children's hearings—and I hope that in appropriate cases they will use this facility—in their treatment

of the case before them to make arrangements for voluntary restitution. There may be many cases in which that is a sensible and adequate method of dealing with the case.
8.30 p.m.
Caution was recommended by the Kilbrandon Committee, but, as I said in Committee, I regarded that as an illogical recommendation. I did not necessarily agree with the Kilbrandon Committee about every detail, but in each case, except that of caution, I considered that the arguments were well rehearsed and the conclusions extremely well argued.
I find great difficulty in understanding why the Kilbrandon Committee came to this conclusion in view of what it said earlier about fines on children and on their parents. Caution is the threat of compulsory financial sanction and it seemed to me to be completely incompatible with the view of the Kilbrandon Committee, which I share, with regard to fines.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South makes the point that if a particular sanction is left out of consideration, the feeling could arise that the children's hearing does not have available to it what it might regard as the most effective sanction in a case. For the reasons I gave in Committee, I do not believe that this will happen in many instances, although I could not completely exclude that a children's hearing would never feel that it would be an appropriate sanction.
I said in Committee that if the children's hearing considered that what was required in a certain case was a sharp reminder to a child who appeared before the hearing about the course that his behaviour was taking and the possible consequences of persisting in that behaviour, an admonition, a rebuke or the very appearance before the children's hearing would probably be as effective in that case as a fine, which for most children is a fairly artificial concept when they are not wage-earners.
If, on the other hand, an appearance before the children's hearing and the fact that the child is given a rebuke have little effect on the child, or if there has been more than one appearance and there


has still been no real improvement in the child's behaviour, I doubt very much whether, in those circumstances, a short sharp sanction is appropriate. There would probably be underlying causes of difficulty which would make a supervision requirement—not necessarily by any means a residential supervision requirement—the appropriate sanction for the children's hearing to impose. In all the circumstances, therefore, the cases in which a hearing might find it a pity that it did not have the sanction of the fine would be very few.
As I made clear in Committee, however, there is not a cast-iron argument one way or the other. It is very much a balance of argument although, in my view, the balance comes down quite heavily on the view taken by the Kilbrandon Committee. At this late stage, however, we are not able to consider all the interesting implications of my hon. Friend's proposal and, therefore, while I appreciate very much the way he moved his Amendment and the thought he has given to it, I must ask the House not to accept it.

Mr. Dewar: I mentioned, in passing, the argument, with which my hon. Friend is familiar, that a large number of offences which at present are commonly prosecuted—which people feel to be of value—will disappear. My hon. Friend said in Committee:
In practical terms, in most cases such offences will disappear because they will not be among the kind of offences which the procurator fiscal, under instructions from the Lord Advocate, will be prosecuting."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 20th June, 1968; c. 385.]
Will my hon. Friend say a word or two about this?

Mr. Millan: My hon. Friend raised the question of Clause 31. I do not think that he interpreted the Clause completely accurately, because he was looking at it in the sense of what happens in a particular case with the procurator scratching his head and wondering whether he should not recommend to the Lord Advocate that there should be a prosecution and the reporter wondering

whether he should take the child before a hearing because an appropriate penalty would not be available. I think that this is not an accurate way of describing what will happen.
In the vast majority of the cases my hon. Friend has in mind there will be, of course, no question of prosecution. It will not be a question of the procurator feeling that there is no appropriate penalty available to the court if he prosecutes, because the whole question of prosecution will simply not arise. Of course, in many of these cases which are trivial, the question whether the child should be brought before a children's hearing will in the first instance be a matter for the reporter himself.
There will be many of these cases in which the reporter, for good reason, will feel that it is not necessary to have a children's hearing, that the matter can be dealt with by taking no action at all, or, in certain circumstances, that it can be dealt with by the reporter passing the case over to the local authority for informal supervision, but there will be cases where, either because of the number of the offences committed, or the kind of offences committed, or because, in the particular circumstances of the background of the child, it seems appropriate, the offences will be brought before the children's hearing. When they are brought before the children's hearings for reasons I have already given there will be a very few cases indeed, I think, in which the hearing would feel their sanctions to be inappropriate and would feel it appropriate that there should be a fine.
I am sure that the other sanctions, which are very important and far-reaching sanctions, which they have under Clause 44, will cover the vast majority of cases which go before a children's hearing. It is for these reasons that I think it would be a pity to introduce these other sanctions, which are rather against the principle of what we are trying to do with the children's hearings, and which I think can have dangerous implications for the way in which the children's hearings operate.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 45

RULES AS RESPECTS TRANSMISSION OF INFORMATION AND CONVEYANCE OF CHILDREN TO RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ETC.

Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 190, in page 29, line 30, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.
This is purely a drafting Amendment. Clause 45 uses the mandatory word 'shall' where as Clause 35(4) uses the permissive word 'may'. This matter was raised in Committee, the Minister, with disarming frankness, told us he did not know what the difference was then. Perhaps he can tell us what the difference is now.

Mr. Ross: This is a matter of very considerable importance, so it was referred to me. I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to brace himself for a shock, for I entirely agree with him, and would ask the House to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 47

DURATION OF SUPERVISION REQUIREMENTS AND THEIR VARIATION

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 192, in page 30, line 22, at the beginning to insert 'Unless the context otherwise requires.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): With this Amendment we can also take Government Amendment No. 195.

Mr. Ross: Yes.
The first of the two, which is an Amendment to Clause 47, is a paving Amendment. Clause 47(3) at present provides that any reference to a supervision requirement is to be construed as a reference to a supervision requirement which is for the time being in force.
It is the purpose of the other Amendment, which is to Clause 74, is to make it clear that when a child is transferred from Scotland under Clause 74 to an approved school in England or Wales or a training school in Northern Ireland the order for transfer is to be regarded as if it were an approved school order or

a training school order made on the date on which the supervision requirement was originally made under Clause 44. If the Amendment were not made, a child whose case had been recently reviewed might have to serve close on three years in the approved school or training school from the date of that review.
The Amendment provides that the period shall start from the date on which the supervision requirement was first made by the hearing in respect of the ground of referral. In other words, a child is to be regarded as originally sent to an approved school or training school by the court on the date when the children's hearing made the supervision requirement under Clause 44.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 49

APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF A CHILDREN'S HEARING

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 193, in page 31, line 35, leave out 'further appeal against that decision' and insert:
'appeal against a decision to continue the supervision requirement, which was the subject of that appeal, made on a subsequent review'.
The Amendment deals with the provision that the sheriff may order that no further appeal shall be made for a year. The Clause as it stands is ineffective. It refers to a decision which is appealable only on one occasion, and it is not therefore an effective sanction in the case of a frivolous appeal to say that it cannot be appealed again, because there is no possibility of appealing it again. We had in mind that where there was a subsequent review which continued the supervision it should not be appealed against for a year, and the new wording makes this clearer.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 194, in page 32, line 1, after 'reporter', insert 'forthwith'.
We are dealing here with an application for the suspension of a supervision requirement against which an appeal is pending, and the purpose of the Amendment is to say that when a hearing is to be arranged in this interim period it should be arranged forthwith. Otherwise, the hearing might not be arranged until


after the appeal had been heard, which would make the procedure completely nugatory from the point of view of protecting the interests of the child who is subject to the supervision requirement.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 51

REHEARING AFTER APPEAL, AND SUBSEQUENT APPEAL

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 32, line 29, leave out '(7)' and insert '(8)'. —[Mr. Millan.]

Clause 52

POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO TERMINATE A SUPERVISION REQUIREMENT

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 32, line 33, leave out 'best'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment the House can also consider Amendment No. 116.

Mr. Millan: Clause 52 deals with the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might terminate a supervision requirement. Reference is made to having regard to the best interests of a child. The word "best" does not add anything. The important words are
having regard to … the interests of a child
Therefore, the word "best" comes out.
Similarly, Schedule 3 deals with whether or not legal aid should be granted by the sheriff granting a legal aid certificate. The Schedule as it stands provides that the sheriff has to be satisfied that the giving of legal aid is necessary in the best interests of the child. This suggests, on the one hand, that there may be some interests which say that the child ought to have legal aid and, on the other hand, others which say that he ought not to. I am sure the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) will not accept that there is a balance of interest, and therefore the word "best" does not give the meaning we want and is better eliminated.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 54

TRANSFER OF CASE TO ANOTHER CHILDREN'S HEARING

Amendment made: No. 30, in page 33, line 2, leave out 'held' and insert 'heard'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Clause 68

VISITING OF PERSONS IN ESTABLISHMENTS ON BEHALF OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 42, line 20, after 'care', insert 'or under the supervision,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we shall be taking Amendment No. 61.

Mr. Millan: These are both drafting Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 69

ABSCONDMENT FROM A PLACE OF SAFETY, OR FROM THE CONTROL OF A PERSON IMPOSED BY A SUPERVISION REQUIREMENT

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 42, line 32, leave out 'placed' and insert 'detained'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we shall be taking Amendment No. 38.

Mr. Millan: This is basically a drafting Amendment. The proper word is "detained" and not "placed".

Amendment agreed to.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 42, line 34, after 'requirement', insert:
'or by virtue of rules made by the Secretary of State under section 45 of this Act'.
The purpose of this Amendment is to cover a gap in the Bill. The Amendment extends the circumstances in which a child may be arrested without warrant to cover cases where a child absconds while being conveyed to a residential establishment. As the Bill stands, this circumstance is not covered but obviously must be.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 42, line 36, after 'Kingdom', insert 'or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it would be convenient to discuss Government Amendments No. 36, No. 43 and No. 44.

Mr. Ross: It has been advised that it is not appropriate for Parliament to legislate on powers of arrest within the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man authorities have indicated their willingness to legislate for necessary powers of arrest in the Island. The effect of the Amendments is to delete the reference to the Isle of Man from Clauses 69 and 70.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 36, in page 42, line 36, leave out 'or the Isle of Man'.—[Mr. Ross.]

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 43, line 5, after 'unwilling', insert 'or unable'.
This is an improvement in drafting. There may be circumstances in which a person from whom a child has absconded would be willing to have him back but would be unable to do so for a variety of reasons. We therefore need to insert the words "or unable".

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 38, in page 43, line 5, leave out 'placed' and insert 'detained'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 39, in page 43, line 6, leave out 'disposal of his case' and insert:
'reporter has considered, in pursuance of section 37 of this Act, whether the child may be in need of compulsory measures of care'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can discuss Government Amendment No. 40.

Mr. Ross: These Amendments are necessary to improve and clarify the provisions of Clause 69(3).

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 40, in page 43, line 7, after 'hearing', insert:
'for the consideration of his case or'.

No. 41, in page 43, line 13, leave out 'has' and insert 'have'.—[Mr. Ross.]

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 42, in page 43, line 13, at end insert:

(5) In this and the next following section any reference to a child absconding includes a reference to his being unlawfully taken away.
This is to cover the circumstances where the child does not abscond but is unlawfully taken away. The object is to allow sanctions which are applied by the Bill to apply in these cases as well.

Mr. Hannan: I would like some assurance on this point. I was not a member of the Standing Committee and regret having to wait until the last moment to raise this point, and if my hon. Friend cannot answer me now perhaps he will let me know later.
In 1956, I had the honour of introducing a Private Member's Act to amend the Children and Young Persons Act, 1937. My Act, in dealing with the question of absconding children, had for its purpose the rectifying of what had been discovered to be a loophole. Three children who were in the care of the Glasgow local authority were, by trickery, on three separate occasions brought to London. When Glasgow local authority discovered where they were and attempted to get them back, it had great difficulty in doing so because the local authority concerned in London refused to send them back. The courts here would not act unless thaty had evidence that the mother, who was here, had regained the children. It took this Amendment in the Act to empower one local authority in Scotland to regain children from across the Border who, by that time, were in the area of another local authority and had been restored to the mother.
If the point is covered by this Amendment, I am glad to welcome it, because it seems the most appropriate point to raise it. If the Amendment,
In this and the next following section any reference to a child absconding includes a reference to his being unlawfully taken away",
covers the circumstances which I have briefly tried to recite, I shall be quite relieved.

Mr. Millan: I think my hon. Friend will see that the point he has in mind is completely covered both from the point of view of absconding and being unlawfully taken away. My hon. Friend will also see that Clause 69 deals with any part of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. Therefore, the point is covered.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 70

ABSCONDMENTS FROM RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHMENTS

Amendments made: No. 43, in page 43, line 24, after 'Kingdom', insert 'or the'.

No. 44, in page 43, line 24, leave out:
'or the Isle of Man'.

No. 45, in page 43, line 26, leave out 'of this subsection'.—[Mr. Ross.]

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 43, line 27, leave out 'escaped' and insert 'absconded'.
"Absconded" is the correct word. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) raised this in Committee. I had an Amendment down, which was not called, but this now puts the matter right.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 47, in page 43, line 29, leave out 'of this subsection'.—[Mr. Ross.]

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 43, line 30, leave out 'other'.
This Amendment is necessary to make a slight improvement in the provisions of Clause 70. The Clause provides that a child who
absconds from any hospital or other institution in which he is temporarily residing".
must be brought back to the place from which he has absconded. There may be circumstances in which this would be impracticable. Therefore, it is necessary to amend the Clause. For example, it may be necessary to bring him back to the residential establishment where he is normally required to reside. This Amendment, by eliminating the word "other", makes that possible.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 71

HARBOURING

Amendment made: No. 49, in page 43, line 37, leave out' subsection (1) of'.—[Mr. Ross.]

Clause 72

SUPERVISION OF CHILDREN MOVING TO ENGLAND OR WALES OR NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 51, in page 44, line 13, leave out second 'of' and insert 'not exceeding'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think it will be convenient to take with this Amendment, Amendment No. 50, in page 44, line 13, leave out:
'for a period of one year'.
and Amendment No. 52, in page 44, line 22, leave out:
'a supervision order is made'
and insert:
'a case is disposed of'.

Mr. Millan: Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 make improvements in Clause 72 and meet points which were raised in Committee.
As Clause 72 is drafted, it would require the court which made a supervision order on a child who moved from Scotland to England, Wales or Northern Ireland, to make it for exactly one year. In other words, there would be no flexibility at all. We are here providing that the court will have power to make an order for a period not exceeding one year, which introduces the necessary element of flexibility.
The reason for making the maximum period one year is that the child who is moving would, if he remained in Scotland, be subject to the normal review requirements of the children's hearings, which provide for a regular review in a period not exceeding one year. It would, therefore, be putting him at a disadvantage in England unless we put some term in the order. We think that we have now got this right.
If the circumstances change in England so that the court there feels that a further period of supervision of some kind is necessary, because of the circumstances in which the child is living, because it needs care and protection, or whatever the need be, the court would be able to do that.
Amendment 52 changes the wording of subsection (3) to make clear that, as soon


as a juvenile court in England has cognisance of a case, any supervision requirement in Scotland falls, whatever the decision of the juvenile court in England on the case may be.
I hope that what I have said answers the point raised by the Opposition Amendment 50, which is directed to precisely the same purpose of removing the inflexibility of the one-year order and nothing else being available. I think that we have the matter right in our Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 52, in page 44, line 22, leave out 'a supervision order is made' and insert:
'a case is disposed of '.—[Mr. Millan.]

Clause 74

PARENTS OF A CHILD IN A RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHMENT UNDER A SUPERVISION REQUIREMENT MOVING TO ENGLAND OR WALES OR NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment 53, in page 45, line 17, after '44', insert:
'and send notification of that requirement in accordance with section 72(1)(b) of this Act'.
Clause 74 (1) deals with the transfer to England, Wales or Northern Ireland of a child subject to a supervision requirement whose parent proposes to reside or is residing in one of those countries. It requires a children's hearing to hold a review of the child's case and empowers it to do any of the things specified at paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (1). In the event of its deciding as in paragraphs (a), (b) or (d), the consequential events are clear. If the hearing decides under(c)to vary the requirement by making a requirement under Clause 44(1)(a)—that is, one which places the child under supervision but does not require him to live in a residential establishment—the Clause does not make clear that the hearing may then arrange under Clause 72 to transfer the child to the country in which his parent proposes to reside or is residing.
The purpose of the Amendment is to make good that deficiency.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 195, in page 45, line 44, leave out 'made' and insert:
'originally made under section 44 of this Act'. —[Mr. Ross.]

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment 54, in page 45, line 44, leave out 'except that' and insert:
Provided that—
(a).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we shall take Amendments 55 and 56. They all deal with the same point.

Mr. Millan: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The effect of these Amendments is to make clear that when an order for transfer is made under Clause 74 transferring a child to an approved school in England and Wales or to a training school in Northern Ireland, the council responsible for making contributions in respect of the child shall be that in whose area the parent proposes to reside or is residing.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 55, in page 46, line 1, leave out 'it' and insert:
'the order under this section'.

No. 56, in page 46, line 3, at end insert:
(b) the contributions to be made in respect of him under section 90 of the said Act of 1933 or under section 126 of the said Act of 1950 shall be made by such council as may be named in the order under this section, being the council within whose district his parent proposes to reside or is residing at the time of the order.—[Mr. Millan.]

Clause 75

PARENTS OF A CHILD SUBJECT TO AN APPROVED SCHOOL ORDER OR A COMMITTAL ORDER MOVING TO SCOTLAND

Amendment made: No. 57, in page 46, line 22, after 'Northern Ireland' insert:
'under Part III of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1950 or Part I of the Education Act (Northern Ireland) 1948,'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Clause 76

PROCEDURE

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment 58, in page 46, line 40, at end insert, 'or both'.
This Amendment makes clear—it answers a point raised in Committee by


the hon. and learned Member for Pentlands (Mr. Wylie)—that the reference in Clause 76 to the
absence of the child or his parent
includes the absence of the child and his parent. It makes the Clause clearer.
Perhaps I should explain that we are dealing here with children who are going to England and Wales, that is, moving out of Scotland, not with hearings dealing with children moving into Scotland, in which circumstances the children's hearing would exercise its jurisdiction not under this Part of the Bill but under the normal provisions of Part III. In those circumstances, the child would be present at the hearing. In the case of a child moving out of Scotland, on the other hand, it may well be that the children's hearing has reviewed his case only weeks before the question of his moving to England becomes an issue. In such circumstances, it seems unnecessary to have a full-scale review with the child present and his parent present. It might, indeed, be extremely oppressive if that were the requirement.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 196 in page 46, line 42, leave out 'this Part' and insert 'section 72'.

No. 197, in line 44, leave out 'under the said Part' and insert 'for the purposes of section 73 of this Act'.—[Mr. Ross.]

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment 59, in page 47, line 15, leave out 'attendance of the child at the hearing' and insert:
'transfer of the child to the place notified to them by the reporter'.
Clause 76 deals with the procedure for transferring children from one country to another under the provisions of Clauses 72 to 75. Subsection (4) requires the responsible authority furth of Scotland to ensure the attendance of a child for whom they are responsible, and who is being transferred to Scotland, at a children's hearing. This might be onerous, and not always appropriate. The Amendment provides that the authority shall ensure the transfer of the

child to a place which it will arrange with the reporter.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 78

DUTY TO MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS IN RESPECT OF CHILDREN IN CARE ETC.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment 198, in page 47, line 31, after 'sixteen', insert 'years of age'.
It will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 199.
These Amendments are intended to remove a defect in the drafting. As drafted the Clause has a deficiency because the subsection (l)(a) refers to a child under 16 while subsection (l)(b) refers to a child over 15. There was a gap between 15 and 16. The new wording which follows the 1948 Children Act makes the position absolutely clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: Amendment 199, in line 33, leave out 'while he is over fifteen' and insert:
'if he is over sixteen years of age '.—[Mr. Millan.]

Clause 79

RECIPIENTS OF CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 60, in page 48, line 1, after '79', insert:
(1) Subject to the provisions of the following subsection.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment the House could conveniently take Amendments Nos. 62, 72, 75, 76, 78, 80 and 83.

Mr. Ross: This group of Amendments, together with the Amendments proposed in Schedule 7 to the Maintenance Orders Act, 1950, are designed to provide the appropriate machinery for ensuring that contributions are paid by and orders and decrees may be enforced against the contributors—the mothers and fathers, living in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. This machinery was laid down in the 1950 Act and the machinery and wording here follows closely that of Schedule 1 to the Act, which is repealed for Scotland insofar as it relates to The Children


and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, which, as applied by the Children Act 1948 and the 1950 Act, contains the present provisions relating to contributions by mothers and fathers.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 67, in line 4, after 'care', insert ', or under the supervision'.

Amendment No. 62, in line 11, at end insert:
(2) Where a contributor is for the time being residing in England or Wales or Northern Ireland contributions payable by him under the last foregoing section shall be payable to the local authority having the care or supervision of the child.—[Mr. Ross.]

Clause 80

ENFORCEMENT OF DUTY TO MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment 63 in page 48, line 14, leave out 'the sheriff' and insert—
'any court of summary jurisdiction'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment I suggest that the House should discuss Amendments Nos. 65, 67, 70, 73 and 82.

Mr. Millan: This group of Amendments change various references to "the sheriff" into references to "any court of summary jurisdiction ". This is the appropriate reference so far as maintenance orders are concerned. The new wording follows the Maintenance Orders Act, 1950.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 64 in line 17, after 'an order', insert 'on any contributor'.

No. 65, in line 24, leave out 'the sheriff' and insert:
'any court of summary jurisdiction'.

No. 66, in line 25, leave out 'resident' and insert 'residing'.

No. 67, in line 27, leave out 'sheriff' and insert 'court'.

No. 68, in line 43, leave out 'it is made' and insert:
''the child is a maintainable child'.

No. 69, in line 44, leave out 'it' and insert 'that requirement'.

No. 70, in page 49, line 5, leave out 'the sheriff' and insert 'any court of summary jurisdiction'.

No. 71, in line 6, leave out 'person liable' and insert 'contributor'.

No. 72, in line 8, at end insert:
(7) Where a contributor resides in England or Wales or Northern Ireland this section shall have effect as if for any reference to a court of summary jurisdiction having jurisdiction in the place where the contributor is for the time being residing there were substituted a reference to a court of summary jurisdiction having jurisdiction in any place within the area of the local authority having the care or supervision of the child.—[Mr. Millan.]

Clause 81

PROVISIONS AS TO DECREES FOR ALIMENT

Further Amendments made: No. 73, in page 49, line 16, leave out 'the sheriff' and insert:
''any court of summary jurisdiction'.

No. 74, in line 23, leave out 'such a decree' and insert 'a decree for aliment'.

No. 75, in line 27, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
(4)(a) In this section the local authority concerned means the local authority which may make application for a contribution order in respect of a child under the last foregoing section;
(b) where the father of a child is resident in England or Wales or Northern Ireland, subsection (2) of this section shall have effect as if for the reference to a court of summary jurisdiction having jurisdiction in the place where the father is for the time being residing, there were substituted a reference to a court of summary jurisdiction having jurisdiction in any place within the area of the local authority concerned—[Mr. Millan.]

Clause 82

RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF CONTRIBUTIONS

Amendments made: No. 76, in page 49, line 39, after 'residing', insert:
', or, as the case may be, the local authority having the care or supervision of the child to whom the order or decree relates'.

No. 77, in page 49, line 41, after 'order', insert 'or decree'.

No. 78, in page 49, line 42, after 'area', insert:
',or, as the case may be, when the authority were not entitled to sums payable under the order or decree ".

No. 79, in page 50, line 4, after 'order', insert 'or decree'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Clause 83

VARIATION OF TRUSTS

Amendments made: No. 80, in page 50, line 6, after '83', insert '(1)'.

No. 81, line 6, leave out from 'is' to 'is' in line 7 and insert:
'by virtue of a supervision requirement removed from the care of any person and that person'.

No. 82, line 10, leave out 'the sheriff' and insert 'any court of summary jurisdiction'.

No. 83, line 15, at end insert:
(2) Where the person in whose care a child has been residing is for the time being residing in England or Wales or Northern Ireland the foregoing subsection shall have effect as if for the reference to a court having jurisdiction in the place where that person is residing there were substituted a reference to a court of summary jurisdiction having jurisdiction in any place within the area of the local authority having the care of supervision of the child.—[Mr. Millan.]

Clause 84

TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 84, in page 50, line 22, leave out 'the coming into operation of this Act' and insert 'transfer'.
Clause 84 at present provides that, where any functions are transferred from one local authority to another by the Bill, all property, etc., relating to the performance of those functions which, immediately before the date of the "coming into operation of this Act" were the property of the first authority, shall be transferred to the second. But different parts of the Bill will come into operation at different times, so it is necessary to make the reference rather more specific. We are, therefore, substituting a reference to the date of transfer of the functions, which is the more accurate expression.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 85

TRANSFER AND COMPENSATION OF OFFICERS

Amendment made: No. 85, in page 51, line 2, leave out second 'officers'.—[Mr. Ross.]

Clause 86

ADJUSTMENTS BETWEEN AUTHORITY PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ETC., AND AUTHORITY OF AREA OF RESIDENCE

Amendment made: No. 86, in page 52, line 8, after 'person', insert 'ordinarily'.—[Mr. Ross.]

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 87, in page 52, line 9, after 'authority', insert:
', and in this subsection any reference to another local authority includes a reference to a local authority in England or Wales'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 128 and 131.

Mr. Ross: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker.
The purpose of these Amendments is to ensure that a local authority can recover from a local authority across the border any expenditure which it incurs in providing accommodation, services and so on for persons ordinarily resident in the area of that local authority. The Children Act, 1948, and the National Assistance Act, 1948 are both Great Britain enactments but, as the relevant provisions relating to recovery from another authority are being repealed for Scotland, it is necessary to spell out in Section 32(1) of the National Assistance Act and in Section 1(4) of the Children Act that recovery can be made from a local authority in Scotland, in order to preserve the status quo. Clause 86 is being similarly extended to ensure that Scottish local authorities can make recovery from a local authority south of the border.
Paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 7 in effect repeats the existing paragraph 16 except that, in the proviso to Section 1(5), which relates to the determination of ordinary residence, the reference to boarding-out under this Bill is to be additional to,


rather than in substitution for, the reference to boarding-out under the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 88, in page 52, line 13, at end insert:
(3) In determining for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section the ordinary residence of any person or child, any period during which he was a patient in a hospital forming part of the hospital and specialist services provided under Part II of the National Health Service Act, 1946 or Part II of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947 or, in the case of a child, any period during which he resided in any place as an inmate of a school or other institution, or in accordance with the requirements of a supervision requirement, supervision order or probation order or the conditions of a recognizance, or while boarded cut under this Act or under the Children Act, 1948, the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933 or the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937 by a local authority or education authority shall be disregarded.
This new subsection provides that certain periods of residence are not to be taken into account in the determination of ordinary residence. We are, here cealing with the Clause for the determination of residence and it is right that we should make this Amendment to exclude these special periods of residence.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 87

CHARGES THAT MAY BE MADE FOR SERVICES AND ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 89, in page 52, line 27, leave out: 'of the said Act of 1948'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment the House can discuss Amendment No. 90.

Mr. Millan: The purpose of these Amendments is to apply the provisions of Sections 42 to 44 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, in relation to charges for accommodation made under the Clause. Subsection (3) provides that as a general rule accommodation provided under the Bill is to be regarded as accommodation under Part III of the National Assistance Act, 1948, and lists certain provisions of the 1943 Act which are to apply accordingly. As accommodation provided under the Bill is to be regarded as Part

III accommodation, it is necessary to add Sections 42 to 44 to the other 1948 Act provisions which are already listed in subsection (3).

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 90, in page 52, line 30, after 'organisations)', insert:
'and sections 42 to 44 of the said Act of 1948 (which make provision for the mutual maintenance of wives and husbands and the maintenance of their children by recovery of assistance from persons liable for maintenance and for affiliation orders, etc.)'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Clause 88

DUTY OF PARENTS TO NOTIFY CHANGE OF ADDRESS

Amendment made: No. 91, in page 53, line 10, leave out 'person' and insert 'local authority'.—[Mr. Ross.]

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 92, in page 53, line 17, leave out 'is' and insert:
''was at the material time'.
The Amendment adds a necessary qualification to the defence which may be adopted by a parent in proceedings for failure to notify the local authority responsible for a child's care or supervision of the parents' address. The critical factor is not whether the accused is, at the time of proceedings under the Clause, living at the same address as the other parent, but whether he or she was living at the same address at the time when notification of a change of address should have been made and had reasonable cause at that time to believe that the other parent had fulfilled the requirement.

Amendment agreed to

Further Amendment made: No. 93, in page 53, line 19, leave out 'person' and insert 'local authority'.—[Mr. Ross.]

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 94, in page 53, line 20 at end insert:
(3) A father who is making any payment to a local authority by virtue of any order or decree under Part VI of this Act shall be regarded as a parent for the purposes of this section.
The purpose of the Amendment is to add a father who is making contributions


under an order or decree to those responsible for informing the local authority responsible for the supervision or care of his child of change of address. The definition of "parent" in Clause 94 in the case of an illegitimate child excludes the father. It is therefore necessary to have this Amendment to the Clause to make it clear that a father who is making a contribution and who would otherwise be excluded by that definition is nevertheless under an obligation to keep the local authority informed of his change of address.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 89

APPLICATION OF TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES ACT 1958

Amendment made: No. 95, in page 53, line 25, leave out 'the appeal tribunals established by' and insert:
'any appeal tribunal established under'.—[Mr. Ross.]

Clause 94

INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 96, in page 56, line 43, after 'order", 'insert:
'in relation to an order'.—[Mr. Ross.]

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 97, in page 57, line 31, at end insert:
'and to any enactment of that Parliament passed after this Act and re-enacting the said enactment with or without modifications.'.
Clause 95(3) at present provides that any reference in that Bill to an enactment of the Northern Ireland Parliament and to an enactment which that Parliament has power to amend is to be construed in relation to Northern Ireland as a reference to that enactment as amended by any Act of the Northern Ireland Parliament.
Clause 96 provides that the Northern Ireland Parliament may by appropriate legislation make such amendments of those provisions of the Bill which extend to Northern Ireland as are necessary to bring them into conformity with the Northern Ireland legislation. As we explained in Committee, it is inappropriate for the Westminster Parliament to legislate for Northern Ireland on the pro-

hibition of publication of proceedings, and accordingly Clause 58, which relates to prohibition of publication of proceedings in any children's hearing, was dis-applied from Northern Ireland.
However, the Northern Ireland Parliament may wish to legislate to cover this point, but Clause 96 does not bite on Clause 58, as it does not now apply to Northern Ireland. Accordingly, it is necessary to make an appropriate adjustment in the Bill to ensure that this can be done.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 95

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS, REPEALS AND SAVINGS

Amendment made: No. 98, in page 58, line 4, at beginning insert 'but'.— [Mr. Ross.]

Clause 97

EXTENSION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF ACT TO ENGLAND AND WALES, NORTHERN IRELAND, THE CHANNEL ISLANDS AND THE ISLE OF MAN

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 99, in page 58, to leave out line 20.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss, at the same time, the following five Government Amendments, Nos. 100, 101, 102, 103 and 104.

Mr. Millan: That would be convenient, Mr. Deputy Speaker, since these are all basically drafting Amendments. They relate to the application of the Bill's provision outside Scotland. They are technical and some of them pick up changes which we have made in earlier parts of the Bill.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I understood that the House of Commons was not entitled to legislate for the Channel Islands, among other places, outside the United Kingdom. Subsection (3) states:
The following provisions of this Act shall extend to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man…


Have any consultations taken place, for example with Guernsey, in connection with the Bill?

Mr. Millan: I assure the hon. Gentleman that all appropriate consultations have been carried out. These provisions deal with absconding children and their recovery from the Channel Islands. I would have thought that the House would not want children who abscond to feel that if they get to the Channel Islands they are beyond the reach of the British House of Commons.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 100, in line 21, after '58', insert 'sections 86 and 87'.

No. 101, in page 58, leave out lines 25 to 27.

No. 102, in page 58, leave out lines 30 and 31.

No. 103, in page 58, line 32, after 'V', insert 'section 96'.

No. 104, in line 35, leave out from 'Islands' to 'sections' in line 36 and insert 'that is to say '.—[Mr. Millan.]

New Schedule

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Registration of existing establishments

1.—(1) Until the expiration of a period of two years beginning with the commencement of Part IV of this Act, or until registration is. effected or refused under the said Part IV, whichever of those three events first occurs—

(a) a registration in respect of any establishment under any enactment repealed by this Act shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be a registration kept by a local authority under section 63 thereof, and
(b) a registration in respect of any establishment (other than an approved school) not required under any enactment immediately before the said commencement but required thereafter shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be kept as aforesaid by a local authority so long as there is no change of user.

(2) Notwithstanding the coming into operation of the said Part IV, the provisions of the said Part shall not apply in relation to approved schools until the commencement of Part III of this Act and thereafter, until the expiration of a period of two years beginning with the said commencement or until registration is effected or refused under the said Part IV whichever of these three events first occurs, a. registration in respect of an approved school required under the said Part IV shall, subject to the provisions of the next following para-

graph, be deemed to be kept by the Secretary of State under that Part.

(3) Before the expiration of the period of two years mentioned in either of the two foregoing sub-paragraphs, the persons responsible for the management of any establishment deemed to be registered as aforesaid shall, if they intend the establishment to continue for the purposes in respect of which it is so deemed, make application for registration in accordance with the provisions of the said Part IV.

Approved schools

2.—(1) The following enactments shall, notwithstanding the repeal or exclusion by this Act of any such enactment, continue to have effect, with any necessary modifications, in relation to establishments which were approved schools immediately before the commencement of Part III of this Act until such time as the Secretary of State otherwise directs, either generally or in regard to any particular establishment—

(a) The Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act. 1937: sections 83(2) and (3) and 85(1), 2(a) and (c) (surrender of certificate of approval of approved school and classification and administration etc. of approved schools); section 107(l)(a) (i) and (b) and (2) (exchequer grants and expenses of the Secretary of State);
(b) The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1963: sections 21 and 22 (directions as to management of approved schools and constitution of managers).

(2) Until such time as the Secretary of State makes a direction under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph in respect of an establishment the payments made by a local authority under this Act in respect of the expenses of carrying on the establishment shall be at such rate as the Secretary of State shall from time to time prescribe.

(3) Until such time as aforesaid any contributions or sums received by a local authority by virtue of any order or decree made under Part VI of this Act, or deemed to be so made, in respect of a child in an establishment shall be paid to the Secretary of State, but subject to such deductions in respect of the services rendered by the authority as may be prescribed.

Contributions in respect of children taken into care

3. After the commencement of Part II of this Act and until the commencement of Part VI thereof, Part III of the Children Act 1948 shall have the like effect in relation to children taken into care under section 15 of this Act as it had in relation to children taken into care under section 1 of that Act.

Approved school orders, fit person orders, and supervision orders

4.—(1) This paragraph applies to children who immediately before the commencement of Part III of this Act were in any of the following classes, that is to say children who are—

(a) subject to an approved school order.


(b) committed to the care of a fit person under an order of a court,
(c) under a supervision order,
(d) subject to an order of committal to custody in a remand home.

(2) Subject to the next following sub-paragraph, a child to whom this paragraph applies shall, on the coming into operation of the said Part III, continue to be subject to any such order as aforesaid, and any provision of any enactment applying to the operation of the order and the treatment of the child shall, notwithstanding the repeal or exclusion by this Act of any such provision, continue so to apply.

(3) It shall be the duty of such local authorities as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State, by such date, and in such circumstances and in such cases as may be so prescribed to arrange for children to whom this paragraph applies to be brought before a children's hearing for the consideration and disposal of their cases under Part III of this Act, and on the disposal of a case the order relating to the child shall cease to have effect.

(4) The provisions of the last foregoing sub-paragraph shall apply in the case of a child over the age of sixteen years who has not attained the age of eighteen years, but where a child has attained the age of eighteen years, on such date as the Secretary of State may prescribe, the order relating to the child shall cease to have effect.

Jurisdiction of courts

5.—(1) Subject to the next following sub-paragraph, on the commencement of Part III of this Act, for the purpose of continuing the jurisdiction of courts in respect of children and young persons who before the said commencement have been charged with an offence, and in respect of children whose cases have been disposed of but where the courts have continuing functions at the time of that commencement arising from the form of disposal, the provisions of any enactment relating to those courts and cases in them shall, notwithstanding the repeal or exclusion by this Act of any such provisions, continue to have effect in relation to those courts and to those cases.

(2) In the case of a juvenile court constituted under section 51 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, the provisions of the foregoing sub-paragraph shall apply until such time as the Secretary of State otherwise directs, and on any such direction being made any question arising from the imposition of an order of such a court shall be dealt with by the sheriff having jurisdiction in the former area of that court as if the order had been made by him.

6. On the coming into operation of the said Part III the jurisdiction of a juvenile court in relation to the care and protection of children shall cease, and any case of a child under the age of sixteen years which was before the court under that jurisdiction immediately before the said commencement shall stand referred to the reporter of the local authority in whose area the child is ordinarily resident, or, where his ordinary residence is not known or is furth of Scotland,

to the reporter of the local authority in whose area the circumstances arose which brought his case before the court.

Remand Home Grant

7. Until such time as the Secretary of State may direct, section 107(a)(iii) of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937 shall continue to have effect.

Probation Grant

8. Until such time as the Secretary of State may by order direct, section 75(3(a) and (b), (4) and (5) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949 shall continue to have effect.

Interpretation

9. In this Schedule the following expressions have the meanings assigned to them—
'approved school' means a school approved under section 83 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937.
' approved school order' has the meaning assigned to it by section 110(1) of the said Act of 1937.
'remand home' has the meaning assigned to it by section 78(1) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949.
'supervision order' has the meaning assigned to it by section 72 of the said Act of 1949.—[Mr. Millan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That the Schedule be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been informed that there is a manuscript Amendment to the Schedule..

Mr. Millan: Yes, Sir. I apologise for this. The manuscript Amendment is in paragraph 5(1) after the second "children" insert "and young persons".
This is a purely drafting point. I apologise for the manuscript Amendment, but this is a complicated Schedule and these words were omitted. I am sure that it would be right to insert them.
This Schedule should be taken with Amendment No. 118, which deletes the existing Schedule 6, as this is a new transitional Schedule which replaces Schedule 6. We found on further consideration of the transitional Schedule that it would be necessary to make a number of Amendments to it to ensure that it was absolutely right. It seemed to us that it would be more convenient for hon. Members if, instead of tabling complicated Amendments, we simply eliminated Schedule 6 and tabled a completely new Schedule of transitional provisions, and I


think that this course is more intelligible to hon. Members. I discussed the matter with the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) and I know that he agrees that this is an appropriate caurse to take.
Paragraph I relates to the registration of existing establishment. It is envisaged that Part IV of the Bill, which deals with registration, will come into operation before Part III, which provides the new system for dealing with children in rouble. It is only when Part III comes into operation that approved schools as such will be abolished and it is at this stage that approved schools should be brought within the registration system provided for in Part IV. Other existing establishments should, as at present provided, be brought within the Part IV registration system at the commencement of Part IV. The revised paragraph I provides accordingly.
The revised paragraph 2, which replaces the existing paragraphs 2 and 3, contains the provisions which will continue to apply to existing approved schools for a transitional period after Part III of the Bill comes into operation. The preamble is in more general form and makes it clear that the approved schools can eventually be brought entirely within the Bill system either individually or all together. As compared with the existing version of the Schedule, Section 94 of the 1937 Act, which deals with contributions, is no longer applied. We have incorporated the substance of that prevision in sub-paragraph (2). We have also removed the application of certain provisions of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1962, as that is no longer necesary when the appropriate provisions are being provided for in other parts of the Bill.
The new paragraph (3) deals with contributions in respect of children in care. It is intended that Part VI of the Bill should come into operation at the same time as Part III, and accordingly it is necessary to keep in operation Part III of the Children Act, 1948, which contains the present provisions about such contributions for the period between the coming into operation of Part II of the Bill and the coming into operation of Parts III and VI. Otherwise there would

be a gap, and this transitional provision provides for that gap period.
Paragraph 4 of the present Schedule deals with bringing before hearings children subject to certain court orders. We have made this provision a good deal clearer. It deals with the continuance in force of such orders and for bringing before the children's hearing as appropriate children subject to such orders. In the period after the Bil comes into operation, it can be provided that children then under supervision should be brought before children's hearings and, therefore, into the general arrangements of Part III.
New paragraphs 5 and 6 are introduced to cover children whose cases are in progress either in relation to criminal proceedings or to care and protection proceedings. Briefly, the courts' jurisdiction to deal with criminal cases before them at the time of the coming into operation of Part III will continue, though paragraph 5(2) provides a safeguard against the indefinite continuance of the special juvenile courts. Care and protection cases will stand referred to the appropriate reporter.
Paragraphs 7 and 8 provide for the continuation of remand home grant as well as probation grant.
I hope that that brief explanation will make reasonably clear what the transitional provisions in Schedule 6 are all about.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule read a Second time.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Schedule, in paragraph 5(1) after second "children" insert "and young persons".

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, added to the Bill.

New Schedule

AMENDMENT OF CHILDREN ACT 1958

1. After section 1 there shall be inserted the following section—
'1A. In Scotland, without prejudice to the provisions of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1958, it shall be the duty of every local authority to secure the welfare of children within their area who are foster children within the meaning of this Part of this Act


and, where the local authority consider such a course to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of this section, they shall cause the children to be visited from time to time by the officers, who shall give such advice as to the care and maintenance of the children as may appear to be necessary '.

2.—(1) In section 2(1), for the words 'and maintenance' to the word 'month' there shall be substituted the words 'is undertaken for a period of more than six days beginning with the day on which the child is received into that care'.

(2) In section 2(3), after paragraph (e) there shall be added the following paragraph—
(f) who undertakes his care for a period not exceeding one month beginning with the day the child is received into that care, unless—

(i) the person during the year immediately preceding the date of receiving into care has had the care or one or more foster children for periods which in the aggregate exceed three months, or
(ii) the number of continuous periods, which exceed six days beginning on the day of receiving into care, throughout which a particular child or any child was in the care of that person in that period of one year exceeds three.

(3) Section 2(6) and (7) shall be omitted.

3. In section 9, after the word 'foster-child' there shall be inserted the words 'for reward'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1

AMENDMENT OF PART IV OF THE CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (SCOTLAND) ACT 1937

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 106, in page 60, line 16, at beginning insert:
(1) In section 40(1) for the words 'apparently under the age of seventeen years' there shall be substituted the words 'who is apparently a child'.
Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss with it Amendment No. 107.

Mr. Speaker: So be it.

Mr. Ross: Section 40 of the 1937 Act relates to liberation or detention of children and young persons who are arrested. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 provides that any reference to a child or young person is to be construed as a reference to a child within the meaning of Part III of the Bill, but that is not wide enough to cover references to persons under the age of 17 years.
The provisions in Part IV of the 1937 Act, as it is to be amended, will deal generally with procedure in relation to children within the meaning of Part III of the Bill who may be or are prosecuted, and accordingly it is desirable to change the references in subsections (1) and (2) of Section 40 to references to
a person who is apparently a child".
That is the phrase already used in the subsection (3) to be inserted in Section 40 by paragraph 3 of Schedule 1.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 107, in page 60, line 16, after '40(2)', insert:
'for the words" apparently under the age of seventeen years" there shall be substituted the words "who is apparently a child", and'.—[Mr. Ross.]

No. 108, in page 60, line 34, leave out '(3)' and insert '(4)'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 109, in page 61, to leave out lines 26 to 28.
This Amendment deletes the reference to the local authority furnishing the court with information as to the availability of residential establishments. It is not necessary to provide this now because in the case of remands and committal to places of safety the local authority will select the place where the child is to be detained, and in the case of detention imposed by the court the Secretary of State shall choose the place at which the child should be detained. Therefore, it is not necessary to provide the court with this information.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 110, in page 61, line 31, to leave out from 'section' to the end of line 37 and insert:
'46(1) for the words "child or young person", in both places where these words occur, there shall be substituted the words "a person under the age of seventeen years"'.

Mr. Speaker: We may take, at the same time, Government Amendments Nos. 113, 112, 166 and 186.

Mr. Millan: All these Amendments relate to the enactments dealing with the prohibition of publicity about young people brought before a court. The


Scottish provisions relating to this are Sections 46 and 54 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, and Section 57 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963. The original intention was to repeal Section 57 of the 1963 Act and to amend the 1937 Act appropriately, but we have found that this is rather less satisfactory than what we are now providing for in this series of Amendments, which keeps Section 57 in force for Scotland. The subsections which we propose to add to Section 46 of the 1937 Act are not now necessary as the appropriate modifications are made by Section 57 of the 1963 Act, which we are retaining.
In the case of children who come before a court we are retaining the status quo in the sense that the age limit for questions about publicity will remain 17, although we have made certain other changes in age limits from the point of view of children who should be brought before the children's hearings or the courts. It is right, in all the circumstances, and particularly as 17 will continue to apply south of the Border, that on questions of publicity we should retain the age of 17.

Amendment agreed to.

Further A mendments made: No. 1ll, page 61, line 47, leave out' (3)' and insert '(4)'.

No. 112, page 62, line 8, after 'Act', insert:
'and section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933'.

No. 113, page 62, line 35, leave out from 'and' to end of line 42 and insert:
'for the words "child or young person" in both places where these words occur there shall be substituted the words "a person under the age of seventeen years" '.

No. 114, page 63, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 35 and insert:
'For section 67, there shall be substituted tha following section'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Schedule 2

CHILDREN'S PANELS

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amend-men No. 115, in page 64, line 33, to leave out 'of the panel' and insert:

'or possible members of the children's panel and members of the Children's Panel Advisory Committee'.
This meets a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) in Committee about the payment of expenses to prospective members of the children's panel and also members of the Children's Panel Advisory Committee. He drew attention to the fact that they did not seem to be provided for in the Schedule. I agree, and the Amendment inserts the appropriate provision. It was always intended that provision should be made for this.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3

AMENDMENT OF LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1967

Amendment made: No. 116, in page 65, line 8, leave out 'best'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Schedule 4

APPEAL TRIBUNALS

Amendment made: No. 117, in page 67, line 2, leave out 'tribunals' and insert 'the panel'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Schedule 6

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 118, in page 68, line 1, leave out Schedule 6.—[Mr. Millan.]

Schedule 7

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 119, in page 70, line 2, leave out from 'proviso' to 'Part II' in line 4 and insert:
'after the words "1948" there shall be inserted the words "or"'.
No. 120, in page 70, line 8, leave out from 'and' to 'art II' in line 10 and insert:
'after the words "1948" there shall be inserted the words "or"'.


No. 121, in page 70, line 12, leave out from '90(6)'to' Part II' in line 14 and insert:
'after the words "1948" there shall be inserted the words "or"'.—[Mr. Millan.]

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 122, in page 70, line 24, at end insert:
7.—(1) In section 87(1), for the words from to an approved school' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words 'to such place in Scotland as the Secretary of State may direct for the purposes of undergoing residential training, and after his transfer to that place may be dealt with and shall be subject to the provisions of this Act and of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1963 as if the order sending him to the school in England or Northern Ireland were an order for committal for residential training made under section 58A of this Act made upon the same date, and as if the order were authority for his detention for a period not exceeding the period for which he might be detained under the approved school order or, as the case may be, the training school order made in respect of him'.
(2) In section 87(2) to (4), any reference to an approved school in Scotland shall be construed as a reference to a place in respect of which the Secretary of State has made, or may make, a direction under subsection (1).
(3) In section 87(3), the words from 'approved school as' to the end of the subsection shall be omitted, and there shall be substituted the words 'to such place in Scotland as the Secretary of State may direct for the purposes of undergoing residential training, and after his transfer to that place may be dealt with and shall be subject to the provisions of this Act and of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1963 as if the order were an order for committal for residential training made under section 58A of this Act made upon the same date'.
I suggest that it will be convenient to take at the same time Amendment No. 173, in Schedule 8, in page 79, line 42, leave out '98' and insert:
'86
Sections 88 to 98'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: So be it.

Mr. Millan: Section 87 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, sets out arrangements for children and young persons to be sent from England, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands to approved schools in Scotland. Although approved schools as such are to be abolished in Scotland there may still be occasions when the most suitable treatment for a child from another part of the United Kingdom can

be provided in a residential establishment in Scotland. For example, children from Northern Ireland are sometimes sent to the Macdonald Wing of Rossie Farm School. It is desirable to make provision for such cases. Accordingly, Section 87 of the 1937 Act is amended to make this possible.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 123, in page 70, line 25, leave out' For section 101(2) there shall be substituted' and insert:
'After section 101(2) there shall be inserted'.

No. 124, in page 70, line 27, leave out '(2)' and insert '(2A)'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 125, in page 70, line 29, at end insert:
(1) In section 103(1), for the words 'whether charged with an offence or not' there shall be substituted the words 'charged with an offence'.
(2) After subsection (1), there shall be added the following subsection—
'(1A) The court in making any inquiry in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection shall have regard to the application of the provisions of section 30(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 but an order or judgment of the court shall not be invalidated by any subsequent proof that the court was not informed that at the material time the person was subject to a supervision requirement or that his case had been referred to a children's hearing under Part V of that Act'.
(3) After subsection (4), there shall be added the following subsection—
'(5) In subsections (1) and (2) of this section, references to a child or young person charged with an offence shall be construed as references to a child within the meaning of section 30(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968'.
I suggest that with this it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 174, in Schedule 8, in page 79, leave out lines 44 to 48.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Very well.

Mr. Millan: The Amendment in subsection (1) takes account of the fact that a child will no longer be brought before a court in care and protection cases, so that it is necessary to remove that reference. The subsection (1A), which we add to Section 103 provides that an order or judgment of a court shall not be invalidated by a subsequent discovery


that a child is subject to a supervision requirement in broadly the same way as it provided in Section 103 at present that an order or judgment shall not be invalidated by a subsequent discovery that the age of a person has not been correctly stated to the court.
As the House will know, in the case of a child under a supervision requirement, he should appear before a children's hearing. If he does not, the Amendment provides that nevertheless the decision of the court is not invalidated.
The subsection (5) which we are adding to section 103 of the 1937 Act—again by subsection (3) of the Amendment—takes account of the fact that in the case of an accused person the relevant factor is whether or not he is a child within the meaning of Part III of the Bill. Where a victim or a witness is concerned, the relevant factor remains whether he is a child or young person, that is, whether he is under 17 years of age. The deletions from Section 103 at present provided for in Schedule 8 are accordingly unnecessary and the references to section 103 are omitted from the Schedule by leaving out lines 44 to 48 on page 79.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 126, in page 71, line 7 [Schedule 7].. leave out 'Part I' and insert 'section 1(4)'
I suggest that with this we take Amendment No. 127.

Mr. Speaker: If that is convenient to the House.

Mr. Millan: The purpose of these two Amendments is to express in more specific form the Amendment to Section 27 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, set out in paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 of the Bill. The existing reference to Part I of the Social Work Act is too general. It is possible under the Bill for different dates to be appointed for the coming into operation of individual Clauses and, therefore, there might not be any operative date for Part I as a whole.
It is therefore necessary to make this reference rather more precise. It is from the date of the coming into operation of Clause 1(4) of the Bill that a local health authority is no longer to perform any function which that Section transfers to

a local authority, and the two Amendments make the appropriate change.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 127, in page 71, line 10, leave out 'section 1(4) that Act' and insert 'that section'.

No. 128, in line 14, at end insert:
11. In section 32(1), at the end there shall be inserted the words ', and in this subsection any reference to another local authority includes a reference to a local authority in Scotland'.

No. 129, in line 15, leave out paragraph 12.

No. 130, in line 27, leave our paragraph 14.

No. 131, in line 36, leave out paragraph 16 and insert:
16.—(1) In section 1(4), after the words 'Secretary of State', there shall be inserted the words 'and in this subsection any reference to another local authority includes a reference to a local authority in Scotland'.
(2) In subsection (5), after the words 'probation order', there shall be inserted the words 'or supervision requirement', and after the words '1937', there shall be inserted the words 'or Part II of the Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968'.

No. 132, in line 40, at end insert:
17. In section 13(1), at the end, there shall be inserted the words' and arrangements may be made under this subsection for boarding out a child in Scotland, or for maintaining him in a residential establishment provided, or the provision of which is secured, or which is registered, under Part IV of the Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Mr. Milian: I beg to move Amendment No. 133, in page 72, line 13, leave out 'in rules made by the Secretary of State' and insert 'by Act of Adjournal'.
As the Schedule stands, it provides for a probation order to be in the form pre-prescribed in rules made by the Secretary of State. It is in fact inappropriate that a form relating to criminal procedure should be prescribed by the Secretary of State. It ought to be done by an Act of Adjournal made by the High Court of Judiciary, and the Amendment corrects that error.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 134, in page 73, line 4, after 'authority', insert:
'for the words "other than a juvenile court" there shall be substituted the words "other than a court whose procedure is regulated by rules made under section 52(2) of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937"'.


With this we can also take Amendment No. 177.

Mr. Speaker: If that is convenient to the House.

Mr. Millan: The purpose of these two Amendments is to except from the provisions of Section 10 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949, in the same way as a juvenile court is excepted at present, a court whose procedure is to be regulated by rules made by the High Court under Section 52(2) of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, as amended by Schedule 1 to the Bill, that is to say, a court dealing with summary proceedings against a child.
What we are doing is continuing the special safeguards, the special considerations, which apply in a juvenile court to the communication to the child and his parent or guardian of the content of any report made to a court about him. This is already recognised in the special procedure of the Juvenile Courts Procedure (Scotland) Rules, 1951, and we are providing for a continuation of these safeguards by these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 135, in page 73, line 19, leave out paragraph (2) and insert:
(2) For subsections (3) and (4), there shall be substituted the following subsections—
'(3) Where any person is committed to a local authority or to a remand centre under any provision of this Act that authority or centre shall be specified in the warrant, and he shall be detained by the authority or in the centre for the period for which he is committed or until he is liberated in due course of law.
(4) Where any person has been committed to a local authority under any provision of this Act, the court by which he was committed, if the person so committed is not less than fourteen years of age and it appears to the court that he is unruly or depraved, may revoke the commitment and commit the said person—

(a) if the court has been notified that a remand centre is available for the reception from that court of persons of his class or description, to a remand centre; and
(b) if the court has not been so notified, to a prison'.

This Amendment goes with the following two Amendments: No. 136, in page 73, line 23, leave out from 'person' to second 'the' in line 24 and insert:

'under sixteen years of age who has been committed to prison or to a remand centre under this section'.
No. 137, in line 25, after 'prison' insert 'or a remand centre'.
These Amendments are consequential on the new provisions substituted by paragraph 26(1) of Schedule 7 for the existing provisions of Section 28(1) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949, which relates to the detention of persons under 21 remanded or committed for trial by a court. In future, if the person is under 16 he is to be committed to the local authority, which must place him in a suitable place of safety, rather than committed to a remand home because under the Bill remand homes as such will disappear. If he is over 16, or under 16 but over 14 and certified by the court to be unruly or depraved, he is to be committed to a remand centre if one is available or to prison if one is not.
The Amendments which replace the existing Sections 28(3) and (4) of the 1949 Act provide (a) that the local authority or remand centre to which a person is committed is to be specified in the warrant and that he is to be detained for the period of committal or until liberated in the due course of law; and (b) that the court, in the case of a person committed to a local authority who is over 14 and appears to be unruly or deprived, may revoke its commitment and commit that person instead to a remand centre or, if one is not available, a prison.
The Amendments to lines 23 and 25 alter the wording of the new subsection (5) which is added to Section 28 of the 1949 Act by paragraph 26(3) of Schedule 7 to make it clear that the sheriff may revoke the commitment of a person under 16 committed to a remand centre as well as to prison under Section 28 and commit him instead to the local authority.
In other words, these provisions introduce various elements of flexibility which would be missing without the Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 136, page 73, line 23, leave out from 'person' to second 'the' in line 24 and insert:
'under sixteen years of age who has been committed to prison or to a remand centre under this section'.

No. 137, in line 25, after 'prison' insert 'or a remand centre'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 138, in page 73, line 34, leave out 'definition—' and insert:
'definitions—
local authority" has the same meaning as in the Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968,'.
The Amendments made in Schedule 7 of the Bill to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949, refer in several places to local authorities. It is accordingly desirable to define "local authority", which is not defined in the 1949 Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 139, in page 74, line 7, at end insert:
In section 8(1), after the words 'the Children Act 1948' there shall be inserted the words 'or section 81 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment, we take also the following group of Amendments: No. 140, in page 74, line 8 after '30', insert '(1)'.

No. 141: in page 74, line 8, leave out from '(1),' to 'for' in line 10 and insert;
' after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—(aa)'.

No. 142: in line 14, at end insert:
(2) In subsection (2) after the words 'forty-three', there shall be inserted the words 'or the said section 80'.
In section 16(2)(b), after sub-paragraph (v) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
'(vi) a contribution order under section 80 of, or a decree or an order made under section 81 of, the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968'.

No. 178: in Schedule 8, page 81, line 41, column 3, at end insert:
',so far as relating to the modification of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937'.

Mr. Millan: These Amendments, to the Maintenance Orders Act, 1950, and complementary to Amendments which we have made earlier today to Part IV of the Bill, are designed to ensure that the machinery exists for the making and enforcement of contribution orders, decrees for aliment and orders in respect of such decrees against fathers and mothers who are for the time being resid-

ing in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, where a child is in the care or under the supervision of a local authority in Scotland.
In other words, it is not possible for a father or mother to absolve himself from his obligation by moving out of Scotland. We are now making the provisions of the Act bite in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 140, in page 74, line 8, after '30' insert '(1)'.

No. 141: in page 74, line 8, leave out from '(1),' to 'for' in line 10 and insert—
'after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—(aa)'.

No. 142: in line 14, at end insert:
(2) In subsection (2) after the words 'forty-three', there shall be inserted the words 'or the said section 80'.

In section 16(2)(b), after sub-paragraph (v) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
'(vi) a contribution order under section 80 of, or a decree or an order made under section 81 of, the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968'.—[Mr. Millan.]

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. L43, in page 74, leave out lines 16 and 17 and insert:
'Any reference to the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, however expressed, or to any provision of that Act shall be omitted.

Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956

32.—(1) In section 8(1) in paragraph (b), after the word "authority", there shall be inserted the words "or to a local authority".

(2) For paragraph (c), there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
(c) of any structure belonging to a local authority or voluntary organisation being a local authority or a voluntary organisation within the meaning of the Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968 and supplied in pursuance of arrangements made under the Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968 for the use of any persons who are blind, deaf and dumb or who suffer from mental disorder of any description and other persons who are substantially and permanently handicapped by illness, injury or congenital deformity or such other disabilities as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State under that Act"'.

This Amendment relates to two separate Acts. The Children and Young Persons Act, 1956, is a Great Britain enactment which amended both the


Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, which is the principal English Act, and the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, the principal Scottish Act. The amendments related to such matters as escapes from care of fit persons, escapes from approved schools, and escapes from remand homes, and the amended provisions of the 1937 Act are being superseded by the provisions of the Bill. The 1956 Act is repealed for Scotland, and this makes clear that the references in the Act to the 1937 Act are no longer applicable to England and Wales or Scotland.

The new paragraph amending Section 8(1) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, is designed to maintain the status quo. Section 8 provides that for the purpose of ascertaining the gross annual value of any lands and heritages no account shall be taken of certain structures. Subsection (1)(b) refers to structures supplied for use in pursuance of arrangements under Section 27(1) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, while subsection (l)(c) refers to structures supplied for use in pursuance of arrangements made under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act, 1948.

The changes are necessary because certain responsibilities under Section 27(1) of the 1947 Act are transferred from local health authorities to social work authorities, while responsibilities corresponding to those under Section 29 of the 1948 Act, which is repealed for Scotland by the Bill, are placed on social work authorities by the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 144, in page 74, line 31, after '1968', insert
'and for the words "that section" there shall be substituted the words "the said section 1 or, as the case may be, the said section 15"'.

No. 145, in line 2, leave out 'sections 5(3)' and insert 'or by virtue of sections 5,'.

No. 146, in line 2, leave out 'and 59' and insert '59 and 60'.

No. 147, in line 11, leave out 'section' and insert 'subsection'.

No. 148, in line 24, leave out from '6(b)' to 'the' in line 25 and insert:
'after the words "1937" there shall be inserted'.

No. 149, in page 75, line 30, leave out '15' and insert '16'.

No. 150, in line 37, leave out 'for' and insert 'in'.—[Mr. Ross.]

Mr. Speaker: We come now to Amendment No. 151, with which it is suggested we should take Amendments No. 152, No. 154 and No. 183.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 151, in page 76, line 17, to leave out '(e)'.
This Amendment, and No. 152, which were referred to earlier today, are necessary because under Clause 1(4) the functions of local authorities under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960, are transferred to the local authorities, other than the functions relating to the ascertainment of mental deficiency of young persons under school age. In essence, what the Amendments do is to place under Section 7(1) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960 functions which are appropriate to the local health authority and to transfer to subsection (1A) those appropriate to the social work authority. You said, Mr. Speaker, that with Amendment 154, we could take Amendment No. 183, but Amendment No. 157 could also be taken, I suggest, in this group.
The purpose of the Amendments is to make clear the meaning of a child for the purposes of Part V of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960. We are dealing here with a court case where the accused young person is not represented and it is necessary to make provision that a medical report shall be made available to the parent if the accused young person is a child under the age of 16 rather than if he is a child or young person. The words "child" and "young person" have certain meanings under the Children and Young Persons Act 1937 where a child is taken up to the age of 17. We are now dealing with a child up to the age of 16 and the three Amendments make the appropriate adjustment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 152, in page 76, line 19, leave out from '7(1)' to end of line 24 and insert:
'after the words "shall include", there shall be inserted the words "the ascertainment of mental deficiency in any person not of school


age within the meaning of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1962".
(1A) In relation to the aforesaid persons the purpose for which arrangements are authorised or required to be made by a local authority under the said section 27(1) as read with section 1(4) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968 shall include the following, that is to say—"; and paragraph (e) shall be omitted ".

(2) In subsection (2) for "(1)" where secondly occurring there shall be substituted the word "(1A)"'.

No. 153, in page 76, line 26, at end insert 'or'.

No. 154, in page 76, line 39, at end insert:
In section 57(3)(b), after the word 'child', there shall be inserted the words 'under sixteen years of age'.

No. 155, in page 76, line 40, after '59(1)' insert:
'for the word "home" there shall be substituted the words "residential establishment", and '.—[Mr. Millan.]

No. 156, in page 77, line 5, leave out first '(1)'.

No. 157, in page 77, leave out lines 6 to 9.

No. 158, in page 77, line 20, leave out '(2)'.

No. 159, in page 77, line 21, leave out 'definitions' and insert 'definition'.

No. 160, in page 77, leave out lines 24 and 25.

No. 161, in page 77, line 26, leave out from '111', to 'the' in line 27 and insert:
'after the definition of "hospital order" there shall be inserted'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 162, in page 77, line 29, at end insert:

Health Visiting and Social Work (Training) Act 1962

54. In section 3(5), after '1948', insert 'or under any re-enactment of any of the provisions of the said Parts of the said Acts of 1947 and 1948 contained in Part II of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.

The Amendment provides that the re-enactments of the 1947 and 1948 Acts contained in Part II of the Bill shall be added to the list of enactments in Section 3(5). The effect is to preserve the status quo.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 163, in page 78, line 3, leave out from first 'of to end of line 4 and insert:
'an establishment or residential establishment within the meaning of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and the certificated teachers employed therein in the provision of primary, secondary or further education'.
The purpose is to maintain the protection which certificated teachers at present employed in approved schools enjoy in the same way as teachers employed by the education authority. The provision in the Bill was not quite right and the Amendment maintains the protection.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 164, page 78, line 14, at end insert:
(b) in definition 42, for the words from 'not include' to the end of the definition there shall be substituted the words 'an establishment or residential establishment within the meaning of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968'.

No. 165, in line 19, leave out paragraph 61 and insert:
61. In section 55, the words from 'section 88(5)' to 'Scottish Act' shall be omitted and after '1948' there shall be inserted the words 'or section 23 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968'.

No. 166, in line 22, at beginning insert:

(1) In section 57(2), any reference to a juvenile court shall, in relation to Scotland, be construed as a reference to the sheriff sitting summarily in respect of an offence by a child.
(2).—[Mr. Millan.]

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment 167, in page 78, line 30, at end insert:
65. In section 29, for the words 'approved school' there shall be substituted the words 'detained in any place under an order made by virtue of section 57 or 58A of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937'.
We are dealing here with a provision in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1963, which provides for the remission of fines where a young offender is detained. The references are no longer appropriate and we are substituting for a reference to an approved school a reference to detention
… in any place under an order made by virtue of section 57 or 58A of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937'.
These provisions are provided for in Schedule 1.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 168, in page 78, line 40, leave out sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) and insert:
66.—(1) In section 11(1), in paragraph (a), after the word 'authorised' there shall be inserted the words 'or, as the case may be, his or her residence in a residential establishment is required', after paragraph (a)(ii) there shall be inserted the following head—
'or
(iii) by a supervision requirement made under section 44 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968,',
and after the words 'the school', there shall be inserted the words 'or, as the case may be, the residential establishment', and in paragraph (b), for the words 'the said Act of 1937' there shall be substituted the words 'the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937' and after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
'(bb) during which the child is liable to undergo residential training under committal by virtue of section 58A of the said Act of 1937 and is not released under that section;',
and after paragraph (c) there shall be added the following paragraph—
'(cc) during which the child is accommodated by virtue of rules made by the Secretary of State under section 45 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can discuss Government Amendments Nos. 187 and 189.

Mr. Ross: Amendment No. 168 provides for the omission of paragraph 66(1) and (2) of the Schedule and substitutes a provision the effect of which is to add Section 11(1) of the Family Allowances Act, 1965, which lists circumstances in which a child has been treated as excluded from a family for the purposes of the Act. A series of new circumstances arise from the Bill. These are any periods during which a child is, first, required to reside in a residential establishment by a supervision requirement made under Clause 44; or, secondly, liable to undergo residential training on committal under Section 58A of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937; or, thirdly, accommodated by virtue of rules made by the Secretary of State under Clause 45, which may provide for the temporary accommodation of children subject to supervision requirements.
The Amendments to Schedule 8 which we are also discussing omit references in Section 11(2) of the Family Allowances

Act, 1965, to provisions which are repealed by this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 8

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Amendments made: No. 169, in page 79, line 21, column 3, at beginning insert:




In section 21(2), the words from 'may take' to the end of the subsection.

No. 170, in line 23, column 3, at end insert:
'and in subsection (2), the words "or taken to a place of safety" and the words "or the person by whom he is taken to the place of safety, as the case may be".
In section 47(1) the words "until he can be brought before a juvenile court", wherever occurring'.

No. 171, in line 35, at end insert:
'and in subsection (4), the words "under this section, or"'.

No. 172, in page 79, leave out line 41.

No. 173, in page 79, line 42, leave out '98' and insert:
'86
Sections 88 to 98'.

No. 174, in page 79, leave out lines 44 to 48.—[Mr. Millan.]

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Social Work (Scotland) Bill [Lords], on consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Sewerage (Scotland) Bill and on the Civil Evidence Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Ross.]

SOCIAL WORK (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Amendments made: No. 175, in page 80, leave out lines 21 to 23.

No. 176, in page 80, line 28, at end insert 'Section 26(1) and (5)'.

No. 177, in page 80, leave out lines 44 and 45.

No. 178, in page 81, line 41, column 3, at end insert:
',so far as relating to the modification of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937'.—[Mr. Ross.]

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 179, in page 81, line 42, at end insert:


15 &amp; 16 Geo. 6. &amp; 1 Eliz. 2. c. 61.
The Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952.
Section 18(l)to(3A)-In section 32, in sub-section (3), the words 'who is net less than seventeen years of age', and subsection (4).


This is basically a drafting Amendment. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) early on in our proceedings in Committee asked why this particular repeal of Section 18(1) to (3A) of The Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1952, was not in Schedule 8. I did not have a very good answer for him then. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we have now put this right. I know it is late on in the Bill, but it is necessary.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House that it was I who called his attention to the need for this Amendment in Committee. We called the hon. Gentleman's attention to the need for this Amendment early on in Committee and it is a great pity— I say no more than that at this stage— that the Government did not see fit to table this Amendment, along with many others, in Committee. It is a pity that so much time has been taken today debating Amendments which could have been dealt with in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 180, in page 81, line 53, column 3, at end insert 'and section 12(3)'.

No. 181, in page 81, line 53, at end insert:


6 &amp; 7 Eliz. 2. c. 65.
The Children Act 1958.
Section 1.




Section 2(6) and (7).—[Mr. Millan.]

No. 182, in page 82, line 3, column 3, at beginning insert 'Section 4(3)(b)'.

No. 183, in page 82, line 29, at end insert:
'and in the definition of "place of safety" the words "or young person" first occurring'.

No. 184, in page 82, line 31, at end insert:
'for persons suffering from mental disorder'.

No. 185, in page 82, leave out lines 37 to 39.

No. 186, in page 82, leave out line 42 and insert 'Section 58'.

No. 187, in page 82, leave out lines 51 and 52.—[Mr. Ross.]

No. 188, in page 82, line 52, at end insert:


1968 c.
The Health Services and Public Health Act 1968.
Section (Home help and laundry facilities).




Section (Extension of power, under the National Assistance Act 1948, of local authority to provide accommodation elsewhere than in premises managed by them or another authority).




Section (Promotion, by local authorities, of the welfare of old people).

No. 189, in page 83, column 3, leave out lines 49 and 50 and insert:
In section 11, subsection (1)(a)(ii), in subsection (l)(c), the words 'or an order under section 73(2) of the said Act of 1937', and in subsection (2), the words 'or the said Act of 1937'.—[Mr. Millan.]

SOCIAL WORK (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
When the Bill first came before the House, right hon. and hon. Members gave it a warm and rather enthusiastic welcome. I recall one right hon. Gentleman saying that we were going in for a major pioneering scheme. The importance of the scheme and the strength of interest taken in it have been evidenced by the heavy work which has been done on the Bill and the number of Amendments which have been made during its passage thus far. I do not doubt that the Bill has been considerably improved, and the record of Government Amendments shows that the Government have been responsive to what was said in Committee.
It is not surprising that attention has tended to concentrate on Part III, since its provisions setting up a new system of children's panels and children's hearings are novel. They are, indeed, pioneering. The new arrangements embodied in Part III do not provide the answer to every problem of juvenile behaviour and delinquency and disturbance among young people. So long as boys are boys and girls are girls, they will continue to get into mischief, severally and jointly, and cause perplexity, if not anxiety, to their parents and to adults generally. No new arrangements, however well designed, will change that state of affairs.
However, we are concerned in the Bill with something different and probably more serious. We are concerned with the troubles and disturbances among young people which are socially destructive and destructive to themselves and to their own personalities. I am sure that the arrangements under Part III will open the way to major improvements in our ways of dealing with the young people with whom we are concerned and, when firmly established, will give a new impetus to experiment and to the development of improved methods.
We shall be heavily dependent on finding enough suitable people to be members of children's hearings and to be reporters. Here again, we must explore new ways

of identifying those who can help, of attracting them to the work, and of preparing and training them for it. There has been scepticism in some quarters about our ability to find such people, or, at least, enough of them. I am absolutely certain that this scepticism is misplaced. There are people in Scotland today to do these jobs. They can be found. It is our responsibility to make every effort to find them by making as widely known as possible the challenge and the opportunities offered by the work, the satisfaction which it is likely to bring to those who undertake it, as well as the benefits which it can give to the young people and to society itself.
We are creating for the first time in the history of the United Kingdom, and, so far as I know, that of any other country, a single public agency whose sole concern is the entire range of social welfare, from the care of very young children at one end of the spectrum, through the care and welfare of the sick, the handicapped and the elderly, to the social support and rehabilitation of offenders who have been placed on probation or released from detention.
The range and scope of this work is great. It presents an immense challenge to all in the social work and related professions and a continuing challenge to the voluntary organisations which have taken part in it. The professions concerned are willing and eager to respond to the challenge. I do not deny that some have had their anxieties either about the ability of their own professional resources to meet it or about the willingness of the public to make available to them the financial and physical resources which are equally essential if the challenge is to be met.
It is right that the House should be made fully aware of the size and nature of the challenge which we are presenting to these professional people. But the challenge is not only to them. The problems are there and have been there. We have dealt with them inadequately in the past. The real challenge is to society. The Bill provides additional facilities and additional opportunities for all to rise to that challenge.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. W. H. Baker: The Secretary of State rightly referred to this Measure as a challenge to us all, in that it is a pioneering effort. The Secretary of State also said that we are dealing with the troubles and disturbances among young people. We have to bear in mind too, that to a large extent we are responsible for protecting society at large. I am not at all sure that the provisions of the Bill will take account of this.
In Part III, as the Under-Secretary was careful to point out in Committee, with the establishment of the children's hearing and panels, there will be no provision for the punishment of children coming before the panel. On the other hand, if a child commits an offence providing the offence is approved of, that is provided that the Lord Advocate considers that the offence has been committed, the child will go before the sheriff. It is foreseeable that in a number of cases, children should not go before the sheriff because they are in trouble either as a result of their background, or their home background.
Those are the very children who should be receiving corrective treatment other than punishment. It is equally true that young offenders who have got into mischief would be far better dealt with somewhat more severely than as we are told will be the case with the children's panel. One of the chief sanctions that the panels will have is to take children compulsorily into care. Again, I am not sure that this is the answer. This is a pioneering effort, but I hope that this and succeeding Governments will not close their minds and allow the Bill to go on for ever without further scrutiny, but will be prepared, if the experiment does not work, although we all hope that it will, to look at it again.

10.15 p.m.

Sir M. Galpern: My right hon. Friend has rightly referred to this as the creation of a single public agency. The use of this phrase aptly describes this forward-looking reform. Unfortunately, I was not able to serve on the Committee, so this is the first opportunity that I have had of making any comments.
I want to deal with Clause 12, which is an important aspect of the Bill, apart from the revolutionary changes which have

taken place in treatment of individuals. Clause 12 lays a duty on the local authority as follows:
It shall be the duty of every local authority to promote social welfare in their area by making available advice, guidance and assistance on such a scale as may be appropriate in their area … 
How does the average citizen, who has never had contact with social benefits, but is suddenly in a sad plight through illness or unemployment, get to know about the many changes which this Bill will bring about?
There is a gross inadequacy of information. Someone who is in and out of employment and has contacts at the local Ministry of Social Security Office knows how to act in difficult circumstances and where to enquire about help, but the decent, ordinary citizen with a problem which he cannot resolve is often so grateful when told where help is available that one might think that one was making a personal sacrifice in telling him.
I would urge action comparable with that proposed by the Minister of Social Security, which is to post 14 million copies of a leaflet headed "Entitlement Campaign", to acquaint families with the benefits available should they require them. Would it not be possible to include in these leaflets in Scotland a description of the services which local authorities will now provide—for example, home helps? Many people, particularly unmarried daughters looking after aged mothers, do not know where to get a home help or that the local authority would pay all or some of the cost. This sort of thing could be explained in the way I mentioned.
But, if that is too early, could not these details be included in rate demands which, in Glasgow at least, include a statement of how the money is spent? There should be officers, and not just voluntary ones. Citizens' advice bureaux are often in back streets or are known by few people. Surely it would not be too much for authorities to establish offices telling people where to seek help for their problems, instead of them being directed to different departments.
Then there is the question of the variation in citizens' contributions for the services under this Bill. In the United Kingdom, there are 3,000 local authorities with 3,000 different means tests, which means


that people are getting the aid they require not according to their degree of poverty, but according to the area in which they live. Some work has been done on the question of a national scheme of means tests so that there should be no variation between one area and another.
In the meantime, there are wide variations in the scales laid down by various authorities, and even between various departments in one authority, as to at what level an individual is entitled to help, either in cash or in kind. I hope that every effort will be made to centralise and unify the large number of means tests that operate in Scotland.
I speak now about Glasgow, but many other places could operate the same system. We have an information office. There should be a central office. One of the problems which was thrown up as a result of the storm damage in Scotland was that there was not one central office to which an individual could make application. There should be a central office to which an individual could apply for advice and guidance on any problem.
With these remarks, I wish the Bill every success. I believe that if a right is to be claimed by the citizen he should know that the right exists and there should be some place where he can go and get all possible advice and guidance to enable him to avail himself of the right.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: This is a very good Bill and one of the least controversial of the Scottish Bills which have passed through the House for some time. In view of the Bill's laudable objectives, this is very satisfactory. It is also very satisfactory to record that there was excellent co-operation in Committee. The Government will admit that they received very good help and co-operation from the Opposition. This has enabled the Bill to be greatly improved from the original draft. This augurs well for the future of the Bill when enacted.
Clause 27, which deals with probation officers, and Part III are very important. My part of Scotland does not have the problem of children who get into trouble in various ways—juvenile delinquency, and so forth. This is because we have a

small population and chiefly because parents accept their responsibility and, if a child gets into trouble, think that it is a reflection on them, because everybody around knows his neighbour. This attitude should be encouraged.
The Bill is designed to deal with areas where there is a real problem. Special measures are required to deal with a special problem. I think that the Bill will be adequate. I hope that the Secretary of State realises that I am not under-rating the Bill in any way. I realise that it is necessary, although the situation in my area is different from that further south.
My party welcomes the Bill and is very pleased that it has reached this stage. We hope that it will have a useful part to play in dealing with what is a very urgent problem in Scotland.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Dewar: This has been a long haul, and rightly so because this is an important Measure. I, too, give the Bill an extremely warm welcome as it reaches the end of its journey through Parliament. It is pleasant to be considering a piece of legislation which puts Scotland, in an important and complicated sphere, years ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom and many other countries.
Many hon. Members have pointed out on various occasions that the advantage of having a separate legal system in Scotland and of having an almost separate legislative passage for Measures affecting Scotland is that we are able to push through Bills of a legal nature—and, in this case, of a social nature—quickly. The Scottish Office deserves the greatest credit for having got the Bill through at a time when the Seebohm Committee has either just reported or certainly its Report is still only being discussed. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Undersecretary for steering the Bill through Committee with admirable clarity and patience, particularly in view of the loquacity of his own back benchers.
There are still ends to be tidied up and I cannot help mentioning, even at this stage, the fact that—there may be a simple explanation for this—when looking through the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act, 1967, in a vain attempt to understand some of the Amendments contained in the Schedules to this Measure,


I found that there were still references to prosecutions before juvenile courts of young persons under the 1957 Act. While I have no doubt that the civil servants have a fiendishly ingenious reason why that provision should still stand, I feel that within a year or two it will look pretty redundant.

Mr. Speaker: Order. On Third Reading, the hon. Gentleman cannot amend the Bill.

Mr. Dewar: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, I am getting authoritative advice from my own Front Bench that I am thoroughly cut of order.
Another end which needs tidying up is the position of the juvenile over 16 whose supervision order has been extended. I mentioned this to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in Committee and he agreed that it might be worth considering. The difficulty is that if a young person between 16 and 18 who is still under supervision commits another offence, will he be dealt with at a children's hearing or be brought up for prosecution? It would be unfair if a first offender over 16 was dealt with in the normal way, before the courts, while someone committing the same offence, but who had been in trouble before, was brought before a children's hearing. The latter would, in effect, be protected. This would be an anomalous and unfortunate situation.
I do not support everything that the Government have done in the Bill. As the Under-Secretary knows, I and a large number of my hon. Friends have reservations about the retention of the large burghs in the new structure which is being created. However, as I have said before, what is done is done, and we must make the best of it. I cannot help thinking that the position has been complicated for the Government, particularly in the light of the hot debates which took place on the question of the probation service.
We now have a good Bill. It is the right vehicle for reform in this important sphere. However, it is one thing to have the right vehicle, but another to change the attitudes of those who must operate the system. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that complacency in this matter would be a mistake.
When I read the White Paper for the first time I noticed that paragraph 75 consisted of only one sentence. It said:
The detention of children as a punishment will be abolished.
This is an admirable sentiment, but I believe that it will be a long time before residential accommodation, once called approved schools, will lose the stigma of punishment. We have an enormous amount of education to do, not only among the general public but among those who will serve on the children's panels. According to the White Paper, in Glasgow we will need about 300 of these people.
I hope that every effort will be made to ensure that, in the training scheme, those who are picked to serve on these children's panels will be sympathetic to the outline which the Government have laid down; that they will accept that the juvenile who strays needs remedial treatment as much as punishment, retribution and punitive policies meted out to him.
I was told the other day about a recent television programme in which a prominent elected local authority person in the West of Scotland spoke about meeting violence with violence. I find this extremely alarming. It underlines that, however wise the Government may be in their legislation, they will also have to ensure that the people who are to carry out what is laid down in the Bill have a similar attitude.
Obviously, we will also need money and more personnel to back up the work to be done by the children's panels. An enormous amount will devolve upon the new departments, and the availability of staff will be important. It is because of that that I have laid great stress on flexibility, to ensure the maximum use of the expertise available.
Overall, this is a good Bill. I think that we have got it about right. If, in Part III, it shifts the enormous emphasis given in the past to the criminal aspect of the juvenile courts over to a greater stress on suitable treatment, that will be an achievement which may do a great deal to solve many of the problems rightly troubling people today in the field of juvenile crime.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I want to make one general point and three specific ones about the Bill.
I make, first, the general point. We began discussing the Report stage over 6½ hours ago, and something like four hours of the intervening time has been spent on Government Amendments. The Secretary of State claimed that this was an indication of all the hard work which had been done in Committee and the responsiveness of the Government to suggestions made in Committee. But I find it hard to believe, with 185 Government Amendments down on the Report stage of a Bill which had already passed through the other place before coming here—and even at this late stage a manuscript Amendment—that it can be explained away entirely by the comprehensiveness of the discussions in Committee or the willingness of the Government to listen to representations.
I feel that the Government have treated the House with a lack of consideration and have taken up a great deal of time unnecessarily. Furthermore, the House has been expected to pass rapidly through a vast number of detailed Amendments which we have had no serious opportunity to consider properly.
Having drawn attention to the fact that we have spent so long on Report, it is incumbent upon me to keep my comments as brief as possible. For that reason, I do not intend to speak about the Bill as a whole, except to say that I accept that it is a major piece of legislation and incorporates many proposals which will be welcomed as extremely valuable.
I want to concentrate my remarks on three aspects about which I am still far from happy as one who was not a member of the Committee. They concern Clauses 1, 27 and 36.
On Clauses 1 and 27, my points are related. When the Bill left this House after Second Reading, the Secretary of State had given notice that he intended to introduce an Amendment which would have the effect of creating social work departments in the large burghs as well as in the counties. That happened upstairs. But it changed fundamentally the view which one could take about the allocation of adult probationer services

to the social welfare departments. Will we get the right organisation for the adult probationer departments?
In paragraphs 28 and 29 of the White Paper, the Government clearly admitted that they had gone straight in the face of the recommendations of the Morison Committee. The only justifications which the Government gave in the White Paper, although I admit that we have heard rather different and wider justifications today, for overturning the recommendations of the Morison Committee were—

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. Is it not the case that on Third Reading one must take the Bill as it is and not start to reargue on a Second Reading basis?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): The hon. Gentleman is right. The debate on Third Reading is far more circumscribed than that on Second Reading. On Third Reading, it is wrong to refer to anything which is not in the Bill.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am well aware that the debate on Third Reading is circumscribed. I thought that I was referring to matters which were in the Bill, because I am concerned about precisely Clause 27 as its effect has been amended since the Bill went to Standing Committee.
The point which I am trying to make is that the argument for allocating the adult probationer services to the social work departments, as is done in Clause 27, has been essentially that they could not be left out on their own, but that the probation service flatly disagrees with this and has always taken the line that the service is perfectly viable on its own, even when the junior department, which is to be removed by the Bill, is taken away from the service.
The main point of this is connected with the forthcoming Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government. Under Clause 27, there are to be discussions with the local authorities about the form in which they are to incorporate the probationer services and I hope that when we have the Report of the Royal Commission the Government will take this very much into account. I understand that in its submission to the


Morison Committee the Sheriff Substitutes Association suggested that if the probation services were to be incorporated as a whole into the social work departments, it would be essential for the areas which were created to be on the scale of regional hospital board areas. This is the sort of thing which ought to happen and which might become possible under the new structure of local government which may emerge from the Report of the Royal Commission.
I hope that the Government will be thinking along these lines, because I am sure that it is only in the context of large units that we can have sufficient specialisation in the probationary work within the social work departments to enable the courts to treat those representatives of the social work departments who carry on the work of the probationer services with sufficient: confidence and, as has been said, the confidence of the courts is vital.
I am still worried about the qualifications to be required of the reporters by Clause 36. Not having served on the Standing Committee, I am still concerned about the Government's view of the qualifications of these officers. In Committee, the Under-Secretary reminded hon. Members that the Kilbrandon Report favoured a combination of legal qualifications and administrative experience in child welfare and educational ser-vices and very fairly added:
… one has only to say that to see that the number of people who have in fact that kind of background must be very small indeed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 20th June, 1968; c. 412–3.]
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that in the Government's view the reporter would not need legal qualifications. This is not the view of a number of authorities and sheriff substitutes. They feel that in cases where a finding of guilt is disputed, and an offender has to return to the sheriff court, and the reporter presumably has to present the case against him, then the reporter would need legal qualifications. I cannot judge whether this is a valid point but it causes me some concern. I am sure that the Under-Secretary was right to say that it will not be easy to find people with these important qualifications.

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. Is is not the case that whether or not the

hon. Gentleman is concerned, nothing can be done about it now? We are on Third Reading? Is it not out of order for the hon. Gentleman to go on talking about what he might have raised earlier, had he been here to do so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a very difficult question. The general theory is that on Third Reading hon. Members talk about the Bill as a whole, and what is in the Bill. I cannot rule the hon. Member out of order for commenting on Clause 36, and saying that he feels concern about it. It would not be right for him to dwell on it at any great length.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am concerned to emphasise that as we leave the Bill there are many aspects which the Government will have to consider carefully.
I wonder whether a major piece of social legislation such as this is wisely introduced a few months before we receive the report of the Royal Commission on Local Government. Many of the functions of this Measure could be seriously affected by its findings, and I cannot see that we would lose much by waiting a few more months to see what the Commission reports, so that we could fit major changes in the structure of social welfare and social work organisations in Scotland into the Bill.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: We who were on the Committee will recognise the validity of the points of my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). They are issues which have concerned us all. I wish the Bill well, and I wish even more good will to those whom it will affect, and those who will have to operate it. I voiced certain fears, on Second Reading about Part III. Although one or two matters have been clarified, many fundamentals still remain as woolly as the woolliest among us could wish.
One proof is the acreage of Government Amendments today. I hate to think of how many more they would have produced had this Third Reading debate been held tomorrow. There is no guarantee that the Government's capacity and desire to increase their productivity ratio of Amendments would have halted with another day's grace.
Some issues have not yet been clarified. It is the issue of dealing with young offenders which disturbs me. It has a flabby feel to it. Guilt is out, punishment is out and offences are nearly out. There is a kind of forbidden phraseology which reminds me of the old story of the lady who was discussing with a friend the delicate and troublesome question of sin. "Oh", the lady cried, "let us not use that word. I hate the word 'sin'." "Very well", replied the friend, "let us call it rheumatism". "Do not call it rheumatism", shouted the lady, "I am full of that." The only moral from that story I want to draw at this stage in our discussion is that whatever word we use, the people involved know full well what it is meant to mean.
It is no help to a young offender who has done something wrong to try to pretend that it is not in some sense wrong and that he should not be punished for it. I believe that young offenders would far prefer us to hold the line so that they know immediately they kick over the traces instead of our trying to pretend that there are no traces. That latter course is dishonest. Any young person worth his salt will know it and will resent it.
Nor does that mistake stop there. It is compounded by the legal concealment behind the children's panels. I fear that every endeavour will be made, and has been made in the Bill, to foster the illusion that these panels do not represent the arm of the law and that they do not have legal sanctions and powers of enforcement behind them. But they have. We would do far better to admit it openly. Offending children will know quickly enough and they will not think much of anybody who tries to pretend that it is not so. They would be far more impressed if we said frankly that we felt that the standards of behaviour in our countries had sunk to an unacceptable level, that we are all to blame for that in some sense and that for our part we are prepared to pull up our socks and, that we think perhaps, the most effective way of getting young offenders to pull up theirs is the children's panels. I do not think that there is any hope of persuading children to pull up their socks if we pretend that they are not down at heel in the first place.
That is what I have against the Bill. It is not so much the system, which will depend to an alarming extent on the reporters particularly and on the personnel of the children's panels. It is the philosophy behind it, which seems to find it more acceptable to set up a vague new structure of social ambivalence instead of inviting the young to participate in a wholehearted move by all of us to repair the social quality of the nation.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Alex Eadie: I am to some extent breaking my self-denying ordinance—because I was a member of the Standing Committee—in rising to speak on Third Reading. I do not have to apologise too much for giving a welcome to the Bill, because as we come to the fag end of a long debate it is necessary that somebody should give it a welcome.
I believe that the Bill is a good one. When we start to talk about the philosophy, I prefer to think of the philosophy of Martin Luther King, who was assassinated in America, and who said that if we pursue that philosophy of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, there will soon be no eyes left in the world. Therefore, the new approach that we are making towards the problem of juvenile delinquency and all the problems dealt with in the Bill is a courageous one by the Government.
I concede that there might have been difficulties in the fact that the Royal Commission on Local Government was meeting in Scotland and might alter geographical areas, which might create administrative difficulties, but I believe that the Government were right in bringing forward the Bill, because we could not wait that length of time to deal with the problem of social work.
In briefly welcoming the Bill, I wish to deal with a point which is very important within the Bill. On Amendments and on Third Reading to some extent we have discussed the problems which will attend the professional staff in working the Bill, but there will also be great difficulties for the people who serve on the children's panels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) talked about trying to publicise the Bill, its implications and effects. I hope that


my right hon. Friend will try to publicise the fact that the panels will be comprised of people from all walks of life. I want to see on the children's panels a variety of people. I want to see miners on the panels; I want to see electricians on them; I want to see dockers on them. I do not want to see only one aspect of life represented on the panels.
The point I made in Committee is, therefore, very important, that it should be publicised that the people who are prepared to go for training and are prepared to be nominated for the panels will receive reimbursement of loss of earnings. I mentioned my experience of 20 years as a lay magistrate. I was a miner working on night shift all night and went to the juvenile court by day. I do not want people to go through what I considered to be a harrying experience as a magistrate. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend, in any publicity he gives to the Bill, will make it perfectly clear that this new experiment we are about to try will involve people from all walks of life and not just those who are said to be "do gooders".
With that, I welcome the Bill, and I hope that it works well.

10.52 p.m.

Earl of Dalkeith: I shall be incredibly brief. This is one of the rare occasions on which I find myself unable to agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie), who welcomed the Bill in as much as he thought it had been greatly improved in Committee. I am sorry to say that I believe that in one major and fundamental respect it was greatly disimproved.
Like many, I welcomed the Bill on Second Reading as being a glorious concept which had the power to do so much good, but I think that much of that power to do good has been negatived by the change which was made by the Government in Clause 1 in relation to the large burghs. This has gone a long way to undo the major power of the Bill to help Scotland and to unify the social services, as we would all like to see them unified.
It absolutely beats me why the Government, with the Royal Commission about to report so soon, could not have used a

little intelligent anticipation of what the Commission's recommendations are likely to be and could not have conformed to what those recommendations are almost certain to be. Therefore, I believe, with real sorrow and disappointment, that the Government have spoiled what could have been such a good Bill.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Mac Arthur: Now that we are at the very last stage of this long Bill I should like to express my personal thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for the courtesy and clarity with which he handled the Bill, particularly at its earlier stage. I appreciate that very much, and I appreciate the trouble he took in writing to me before Report to deal with some of the points we raised in Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, in moving the Third Reading, claimed that the Government had been very responsive. To some extent the Government have been responsive, but where they have responded—goodness me—they have responded very late in the day.
I want to refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) about the conduct of the Report stage today. I do not believe that it was necessary for the House to be confronted with 199 Amendments on the Notice Paper. Only 16 of these were non-Government Amendments, so that 183 Government Amendments confronted the House at 4 o'clock today. Of these, 10 were starred, last-minute Amendments, and even that was not good enough for the Government in their scramble to force through Amendments at the last moment. We were then inflicted with a manuscript Amendment, too.
The scramble has been such that I am left with an uneasy feeling that these last-minute Amendments may not be the end of the story. I feel that the way in which the Bill has been handled today is an abuse of the co-operative spirit in which we have approached it, and, more importantly, I suggest that this is an improper treatment of the House of Commons. We have spent six hours on the Report stage, placing an unnecessary burden on hon. Members and, with great respect, on Mr. Speaker and Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I think that all of us can share the credit for a Bill which is a good Bill, and which, I believe, could be a better Bill. The Kilbrandon Committee, which was the start of this long journey, was set up by the Conservative Government, and the Bill which largely resulted from it was introduced by this Government, so I think that we can both share the credit.
I said that the Bill could have been improved further because I am still very doubtful about three matters in the Bill. I trust that the Government will give the greatest possible care to the need to protect the rights of the child before the children's hearings. I am not satisfied that the Bill has yet gone far enough in that regard, and a lot will depend upon the rules laid down by the Secretary of State for the conduct of children's hearings.
Secondly, I am dismayed about the lack of advance regarding the structure of the probation service, which we debated at length today. Above all, I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) about the damage done to the Bill by the Government in Clause 1. We talked about the reintroduction of the large burghs. I think I must make clear that it is not the large burghs as large burghs we are worried about; what concerns us on this side of the House is that the number of administering authorities has been so enormously increased.
I cannot believe it was sensible—indeed, it flies in the face of the Government's own intentions in the White Paper —to expand the number of local authorities to 56 at a time when we know that the number of local authorities in Scotland is shortly to be reduced as a result of the work of the Royal Commission.
The hon. Gentleman was good enough to give us an assurance in Committee that he would consult the local authorities about the possibility of voluntary amalgamations, which would at least have gone some way towards meeting our objections. I was not very encouraged by what he had to say to us today about the progress of the consultations, although I do take some hope from the fact, if I understood him aright, that local authorities have suggested that the Govern-

ment should take an initiative as soon as the Report of the Royal Commission is in their hands.
If that is so, I hope that it means that the local authorities will themselves agree to adopt a course of voluntary amalgamation which will substantially reduce the number of administering authorities below the figure of 56, and begin to conform, so far as common sense and intelligent anticipation make it possible, to the shape of the local authority structure which will in time follow the Royal Commission's Report.
I would say, in passing, that, if that can be done, that in itself might well overcome many of the objections which have been raised about the proposed introduction of the probation service into the social welfare departments, and, in particular, the fragmentation of the probation service which would follow the Bill as it stands.
We have conducted our long debates on the Bill against a background of rising crime and frightening violence in Scotland. I listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. WolrigeGordon) had to say about the treatment of young offenders. I have great respect for his views, but this is primarily a matter of emphasis, if he will allow me to say so. I am not convinced that the Bill represents a soft, easy treatment of juvenile delinquents. I do not believe that it is an extension of the permissive society. On the contrary, I believe that it is not. If we can, through the Bill, identify and treat circumstances which, if properly handled, may save the child in trouble or the troublesome child from turning into a teenage thug, we shall have made a major advance towards beating this enormous problem in Scotland.
The Bill does not deal only with problem children: it covers all ages. It covers the whole range of deprivation and difficulty caused by sickness and old age. The Secretary of State described the Bill as a major pioneering scheme. I believe that it is. The quality of the pioneering has been endangered by the changes made to Clause 1, and I hope that the voluntary amalgamations which will come will remove that danger completely, but I have doubts about that.


If the Bill works, as I trust it will, then it could build in Scotland a social work system which may become a model for other countries to admire and adopt.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Millan: I am glad that the Bill, at all its stages, has had a general welcome from the House. I was very appreciative of the approach taken in Committee by all the members of the Committee, including the hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), who led for the Opposition. The Committee stage was constructive, and the Bill was considered with an absence of rancour which is perhaps not so common in the Scottish Standing Committees as some of us would like it to be.
We now have a major Measure of social reform. In reply to points that have been raised, I will say a word about the two particular aspects of the Bill. The first is the establishment of the social work department. At the end of the day this will perhaps prove to have been the most fruitful part of the Bill. In the wide range of activities covered by the social work department, whether dealing with delinquent children, with children generally in need of help or with adults right up to the elderly, there are tremendous problems still to be solved and tremendous jobs to be done. There is also the need for society as a whole to recognise that in the future it will have to devote more resources to the kind of work done by the social work department.
By bringing within one department a whole range of social welfare services, including the probation service, we have laid the framework which will allow that job to be done more effectively than it can be done with the present dissipated services.
The question of the probation service has been raised in this context and has been a feature of our discussions throughout. I do not now want to go over the arguments again, but I say to the probation service and hon. Members who may still feel concerned that it should be brought into the social work departments that I hope they will not allow short-term difficulties—and there will be some —to obscure the long-term advantages which I am confident will come from in-

corporation of the service in these departments. From the long-term point of view I think that this is the right solution and the fact that it is will be increasingly recognised, I am sure, by the probation officers themselves as the new departments come into operation and begin to make an impact on the problems with which they will have to deal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) raised the question of getting over to those who may need the services of the new departments the fact that they are available. I would not pretend that the establishment of the departments will solve all the problems of communication, because there are profound problems here, particularly in dealing with certain sections of society who obviously need help, but are not amenable to the normal processes of mass communication or public relations, as it were.
But the establishment of a single department is obviously in this respect as well a considerable step forward because it reduces the bewildering complexity of services separately organised which the person in need of help faces at present. Now we are bringing these services together and are putting them on to a more coherent and comprehensive basis and this can only be a help from the point of view of communicating to those who need help the kind of services available.
In the establishment of the social work departments, one of the points of controversy has been the Government's decision to allow the large burghs to continue to provide the services most of which they are already providing under existing legislation and to make large burghs social works departments as well as counties of cities and county councils. Again, it is rather late to argue this matter in detail once more, but I think that what is provided in the Bill will be compatible with a movement towards larger units if that is what the Royal Commission recommends and what the Government, on the receipt of the recommendations, decide.
There is nothing in the Bill which is incompatible from the long-term point of view with having the social work departments organised on a wider basis and with larger populations than we shall have under the Bill as expressed at present. I have already given information to the


House about the reactions of the local authority associations towards combinations and I do not take the pessimistic view about it which some hon. Members have shown today.
Then there is the question of whether we should have waited for the Report of the Royal Commission. The Kilbrandon Committee was set up in May, 1961, by Jack Maclay, as he was then. It reported in April, 1964. In view of the urgency of the problems, which the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire has mentioned—particularly problems of juvenile delinquency—it would have been irresponsible of the Government to defer this major element of reform any longer. It was right to bring it forward now. This has disadvantages in relation to the Royal Commission but I do not believe that what we have done will prove in the event from the long-term point of view to be incompatible with what the Royal Commission is likely to recommend.
The other major matter dealt with is the establishment of children's panels and hearings to replace juvenile courts. I have been gratified to see that, at all stages of the Bill, this major change in our method of dealing with young people has had a general welcome. I do not think that it has had a unanimous welcome. For example, I do not think that the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) or the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) is happy about the procedure which is laid out in Part III of the Bill. But I think that what we are doing is on the right lines. I am sure that as the panels come into operation they will provide potentially a much more fruitful and effective way of dealing with young people who, for one reason or another, come before them than we have at the present time in our juvenile court system.
The hearings will not only deal with offenders; they will deal with children who may be before them for a wide range of other circumstances. In many of these cases my view would be that the children concerned are much more offended against by society, because of their home background, than offenders against society. We should keep in mind that we are dealing with a whole variety of circumstances and children, and it would be wrong to look upon all of

them as having offended against society. Certainly, it would be terribly and tragically wrong to look upon them as children who require to be severely punished if they are to be turned into responsible citizens.
The children's hearings will have substantial sanctions. I do not like to look on this in terms of whether the sanctions are tough or soft, because that is the wrong way to look at what we are doing in Part III. We require sanctions in Part III which will allow the children's hearings to deal with the individual children that come before them in the most effective way possible for the good of the children, and also, in certain cases, for the protection of society. I think that we have here a range of sanctions which will provide the children's hearings with the means of doing the job that we are placing on them.
The personality of the individuals who make up the panels will be extremely important. I have already said in Committee that we do not intend to have the members of the panels drawn from any narrow section of society. We shall look to people in all walks of life whom we think have the right kind of background and human approach to do the job effectively. I take the point which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). If we get the right people and establish these new panel procedures in the right kind of atmosphere, I repeat that I think that potentially this can be a very fruitful way of dealing with these young people in trouble.
I have been pleased at the general welcome that has been given to the Bill. I think that sometimes in Scotland we pride ourselves on being in advance of the rest of the United Kingdom when in fact, unfortunately, we are not. But this is one major piece of social legislation which puts us very far ahead. It is taking imaginative and bold measures of reform. We have every reason as a House, and particularly as Scottish Members, to be very proud of this Bill and I hope that in that spirit we shall see it implemented in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

SEWERAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL

Lords Amendments Considered.

Clause 3

CONSTRUCTION ETC. OF PUBLIC SEWERS AND PUBLIC SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS

Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 2, line 18, leave out from "street" to end of line 21.

11.14p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): It might be convenient to the House to consider, at the same time, Amendments Nos. 2 and 12, the new Clause "A", and Amendment No. 13.

Mr. Buchan: The combined effect of the Amendments is to ensure that any work carried out under the Bill by any person will comply with the requirements of the Coast Protection Act, 1949. The words which we propose to delete would require the consent of the Board of Trade, and these references are to be superseded by this new Clause, which is of course the common form for this kind of provision. The new Clause will also repair an omission by applying the relevant provisions of the Coast Protection Act to any works done under the Bill which might interfere with navigation.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12

RIGHTS OF OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS TO CONNECT WITH AND DRAIN INTO PUBLIC SEWERS, ETC.

Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 6, line 31, leave out from "it" to end of line 33.

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Again, there may be points here which particularly affect hon. Members, so that it might be convenient to discuss, at the

same lime, Lords Amendments No. 4, in Clause 14, page 8, line 7, leave out from beginning to "who" in line 8 and insert "appeal to the Secretary of State"; No. 5, in Clause 14, page 8, leave out line 10; No. 6, in Clause 14, page 8, line 34, leave out "£50" and insert "£25"; and No. 7 in Clause 17, page 10, line 32, leave out from "them" to end of line 33.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 7 are basically drafting Amendments which delete unnecessary words in Clauses 12 and 17, each of which provides for an appeal to the Secretary of State, and the words which we propose to delete in both cases say that his decision is final. But of course the procedure for appeals to the Secretary of State is laid down in Clause 51 of the print which we are considering, subsection (5) of which says that the decision of the Secretary of State on appeal is final. It is, therefore, unnecessary to say so in Clauses 12 and 17.
The remaining Amendments are minor ones to bring to the provisions of Clauses 12 and 14 more closely into line. Each of the Clauses confers on the local authority powers of control to be exercised when someone proposes to connect a private sewer or drain to the public system. The two Clauses were not originally linked, but a fairly close connection was established as a result of Amendments made to Clause 14 on Report in this House. This was mainly on the initiative of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). Discrepancies between similar provisions of the two Clauses are therefore undesirable and in that sense the Amendments are consequential.
Clause 12(5) provides for an appeal to the Secretary of State where an owner of premises who has applied for permission to connect his private drain or sewer to the public system is aggrieved by the local authority's decision or by any condition attached to it. Under Clause 14, if he is ordered to construct a drain, private sewer or private sewage works in a particular fashion, his appeal is to the sheriff. There should not be appeal to different authorities on different aspects of what might essentially be similar things which we have now linked in this way. We therefore propose that both appeals should lie to the Secretary of State and the first two Amendments provide for this.
Clause 12(8) provides for a penalty not exceeding £25 for making an unauthorised connection of a drain or private sewer to a public sewer, and under Clause 14 the penalty for constructing such work is £50. Because we have linked the two Clauses, we think that the penalty in both cases should be £25, which would bring together the two views expressed in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 18

EXPENSES OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND DISSOLUTION OF DRAINAGE DISTRICTS

Lords Amendment No. 8: In page 11, line 12, after "to" insert "or in respect of".

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a minor drafting Amendment. We have enlarged the payment of compensation to officers or servants who, as a result of the change, may have suffered loss but this is too restrictive, because it may not cover a payment to the dependants of such an officer who had died before the payment was made. These words will remove that doubt.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Clause 29

DECISION ON APPLICATION

Lords Amendment No. 9: In page 17, line 30, leave out from "such" to "as" in line 31 and insert "inspection chambers or manholes".

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is purely a drafting Amendment which puts the reference from the singular into the plural, because we might require a plural purpose in the way of two inspection chambers or manholes.

Mr. Wylie: I do not wish to detain the House, but I was always under the impression that the Interpretation Act states that the singular includes the plural

and the plural includes the singular. Is this Amendment necessary?

Mr. Buchan: I take the point, but in the following condition—subsection (3)(1)(l)—there is a plural reference which it would be difficult to put into the singular, and in the circumstances it might be better to put the singular into the plural in this case.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 41

BREAKING OPEN OF STREETS, ETC.

Lords Amendment No. 10: In page 23, line 8, after "authority" insert "or other person".

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is consequential on one made on Report. It was involved with the breaking open of a street, which originally required the local authority to do the work. We extended the discretionary power so that a private person could undertake it, and it is clearly right that the same provision should apply to a private person as to a local authority. The Amendment achieves this object.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45

PRODUCTION OF PLANS AND FURNISHING OF INFORMATION TO AUTHORITIES

Lords Amendment No. 11: In page 24, line 8, after "without" insert "unreasonable".

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Under this Clause a local authority can require an owner or occupier of land to produce to it plans of a sewer or drain, and so on. We have put in the word "unreasonable" because as it stands I understand that no expenditure could be made at all—not even in respect of a postage stamp or a telephone call. We have therefore put in this word. I understand the local authorities are pleased that this Amendment should be made.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 58

INTERPRETATION

Lords Amendment No. 14: In page 32, line 26, leave out "pumps" and insert:
pumping stations, storm water overflow pipes, outfall pipes".

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might be convenient to take, at the same time, Lords Amendment No. 15, in page 32, line 30, leave out "and outfall pipes".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: So be it.

Mr. Buchan: The second Amendment is consequential. Subsection (2) lists certain installations which may be necessary to the operation of a drain, sewer or sewage treatment works. The two Amendments are necessary for clarification purposes. The first substitutes the words "pumping stations", and so on, because the word "pumps" may not adequately describe the whole pumping installation. The same consideration applies to the other Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to.

CIVIL DEFENCE BILL [Lords]

Consideration deferred till tomorrow.

MEAT AND LIVESTOCK COMMISSION (LEVY)

11.24 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): I beg to move,
That the Meat and Livestock Commission Levy Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.
I begin by reminding the House how the Commission came into being. It followed the inquiry which the previous Government had made into this industry. The Report was published in February, 1964, as Cmnd. 2282. In the 1965 White Paper on the marketing of meat and livestock we took up the task and made clear what we intended to do. We said:

The Government are resolved that the weaknesses should be remedied and intend to take very early action.
At that time, and in the subsequent proceedings on the Agriculture Bill, there was much common ground on both sides of the House. Some thought that the powers proposed for the Commission were too great; others thought that they were not great enough, and a few even thought that it had been given the wrong name. But there was no division on the broad policy of tackling in a comprehensive way the problems of the meat and livestock industry.
I am recalling this deliberately, because now that the Commission is in being and its work has to be paid for, we are hearing all about the opposition expressed to it. The need for the work which it will undertake is in danger of being forgotten. From the first, however, it was the Government's intention that the work of the Commission should be financed mainly by a levy on the industry. This was stated clearly in the 1965 White Paper on the marketing of meat and livestock, and embodied by Parliament in the Agriculture Act, 1967. There was no misunderstanding about this at the time.
I cannot accept that the Commission's work should be paid for out of public funds. The Government have been contributing for a long while to some of the main work which the Commission takes over. We have, for example, rightly used public money to get beef recording started, but I need scarcely remind the House of the words in the 1963 Annual Review White Paper, when the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), sat on this side, that Government contributions were, and I quote:
to the costs of establishing the necessary organisations until they can be taken over by the industry.
Government support will have been given to the Beef Recording Association for some five years, which is a good deal longer than might reasonably have been expected at the time, and a good deal longer than most hon. Members expected. It is, therefore, time for the industry to finance, through the Commission, what amounts to an investment in its own future.
Now I come to the Commission's proposals and the Order before the House.


The Commission submitted to the Secretary of State for Scotland and me a levy scheme which included the following maximum rates of levy: cattle, 8s. a head; calves, 2s. a head; sheep, l0d. a head; pigs, 2s. a head. It was estimated that this would yield an annual income of just under £3 million. The Commission also indicated that at first it intended that the actual rates of levy would be: cattle, 4s. a head; calves, 1s. a head; sheep, 4d. a head; and pigs, 1s 9d. a head.
This would yield about £1,850,000. The Commission believed that this lower level would be sufficient for about two years, but it none the less attached considerable importance to the inclusion in the Order of the higher levels, so that there could be reasonable forward planning of its future work.
The Secretary of State for Scotland and I received representations from a
number of different interests about the Commission's proposals. We received several deputations and gave careful thought to these matters and I would draw the attention of the House to two important points. First, we have received an assurance from the Chairman of the Commission that the initial rates of levy will not be increased during the first two years, and the Commission has made this assurance public. In other words, the Commission will not levy in excess of the estimated sum of £1,850,000 a year during its first two years.
Secondly, we have reduced the maximum rates of levy so that in the draft Order now before the House, these rates are: cattle, 6s. a head; calves 1s. a head; sheep 6d. a head and pigs 2s. a head. This would raise an estimated £2,450,000. The question is: why did we do this? Why have we exceeded the minimum amount which the Commission stated would be necessary for the first two years? We thought it right that the Commission should have some room for manoeuvre to plan for its future development.
The Commission has an important job to do in the longer term in the interests of the whole industry and it clearly needs confidence to plan ahead. None the less, the Secretary of State for Scotland and I, taking note of the representations made to us, decided that we should reduce the

maximum rates of levy, so that the Commission will have to come back to Ministers and to Parliament, if it should wish to make any substantial increase in its expenditure and its charge on the industry.
The position, therefore, is that the levy will not be raised for two years above the initial rates which are estimated to yield £1·85 million and that after that time there will be a small margin which might allow the Commission to charge an estimated further £0·6 million.
The House is entitled to know how the £1·85 million will be spent. About three-quarters of this money will be spent on existing work—the work which is now being done by the Pig Industry Development Authority, on meat research and on beef recording. The largest part of this— about £1 million—is the continuing programme of the Authority. I think that this has been very valuable and I am glad that the Chairman of the Authority, Sir Richard Verdin, is now the Deputy Chairman of the Commission.
The remaining quarter of the Commissions' expenditure—about £0·45 million—will be on the first stages of work in a number of fields. This includes sheep recording; carcase classification and evaluation in the interests of producing meat most suited to the requirements of the housewife; and market information. That will amount to about 25 per cent. of the Commission's work during the first two years of its operations.
I turn now to the method of collecting the levy, because there has been a good deal of publicity given to this point. The scheme will enable the Commission to impose a levy on the various categories of livestock at the point of slaughter. This proposal to collect a single payment in respect of each animal, instead of splitting the levy between the various parties to any market transaction, obviously makes for simple and economical administration. But as it has been criticised, I should like to deal with it more fully.
It has been said that the person on whom the levy first falls will pay the whole of it, and that the burden of the levy will not, therefore, be spread across the whole industry, amongst all the people who will benefit from the Commission's work. Before confirming the scheme in this respect, my right hon. Friend the


Secretary of State for Scotland and I gave this question careful thought. We went into it with very great care. We believe, with the Commission, that the burden of the levies will be diffused, which is how the market works with any other cost of distribution. Why should it prove otherwise with these levies?
I am satisfied that although a levy scheme could have been put forward under the Act specifying any number of classes of people on whom charges might have been separately imposed, the Commission was right to consider the equity of the scheme in practice rather than in appearance. A composite charge would still be spread by market forces and the complication of additional payments would merely add to the cost of collection.
I should like to emphasise here that the Commission is concerned with the whole of the meat and livestock industry. One cannot allocate the programme of work on the basis of its supposed immediate value to particular sectors of the industry. All parts of this diverse industry are linked and inter-dependent. It is in the interests of the retail trade as well as the farmer's that the right type of livestock should be produced and marketed at the right time.
It is in the farmer's interests as well as the meat retailer's that consumers should be well informed and that their demands should be reflected back quickly and accurately through the marketing complex. When different sectors argue narrowly their own particular case, they show the very fragmentation due to immediate interest which the Commission has been set up to overcome in the longer-term interest of the industry as a whole.
We have confidence in the Commission. I am sure that its work will develop progressively as all sectors of the industry appreciate the value of the tasks with which it has been charged and the need to press ahead with them. The consultative machinery included in the formal structure of the Commission is there for all sectors of the industry to use. Through it they can make known their views and be closely connected with the Commission in carrying out the work which is most to their own benefit. Their co-operation is vital. I believe

that it will be forthcoming in full measure as the Commission tackles the work ahead.
To make the start which is so important, my right hon. Friend and I have no hesitation in commending this Order for the approval of the House.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber: An important Order of this kind should not have been brought forward so late at night. My hon. Friends and I feel that we should have been given more time in which to debate the matter. It is regrettable that the Order should have been imposed on us at this hour.
We have noted what the Minister said about the Order and I would not dissent from what he said about the background to the setting up of the Commission. It arose, as he said, from the Verdon-Smith Report and it was included in the Agriculture Act, 1967. When we debated this matter on Report and in Committee we made our attitude towards the Commission perfectly clear; that we were not opposed to it being set up, but that we felt that it was being given unnecessary extra powers. We discussed this issue at great length, and I do not propose to repeat that discussion now.
We had no desire to prevent the Commission from being set up. Indeed, we could not, and we expressed our belief that there was useful work for it to do in terms of the scope about which the Minister spoke. In other words, I wish to make it perfectly clear at the outset that I do not dissent from the Minister's general approach to the setting up of the Commission.
Once set up, the Commission must have the funds to do its work. I would not recommend my hon. Friends to oppose the Order if we felt that the proposed levy was correct and that one could have complete confidence in the method of collection. I will, therefore, concentrate my remarks on these aspects.
The Minister gave an assurance that the proposed levy would not be raised for at least two years. That is a useful assurance. He also said that the levy would not be the maximum provided under the Order. We note, too, that the Minister has reduced the maximum for which the Commission had asked. In terms of cattle units, it has been reduced from 8s. to


6s., and the Commission says that it will raise only 4s. in the first two years.
The Minister will be aware of the concern that has been expressed by the meat trade, and by the butchers in particular, about the method of collection. I would not disagree with the view that the most economical method of collection is at the point of slaughter. Hon. Members connected with the agriculture industry will have in mind the problem of collecting the levy for the Agricultural Training Board. That is extremely diffuse and the cost of collection is enormous in relation to the funds raised. Nevertheless, the meat interests feel strongly that there is a degree of injustice here, and we should take careful note of that view.
How is it that this matter has not been cleared up in discussions by the various committees of the Commission? When the committees were set up, some of us voiced doubts about whether they had been made large enough or fully enough representative. I referred specifically to this in Committee, and pointed to the danger of antagonisms arising in the working of the authority and the feeling that one section was being unduly squeezed.
That is precisely what one section now feels. I am not clear why discussions in the Distributive Committee did not lead to a fuller understanding about the matter, and whether it means that some sections of the distribution side feel that they are not adequately represented. If that is so, I can only say that we warned the Government about that when the matter was in Committee. The feeling is there, and it is one of which the Government should take note.
It is in this connection that I feel that the Minister's approach is wrong. While I do not accept what the meat trade is saying about it, because I feel that the effect of the levy will be spread out by the operation of the market, I have to acknowledge that the trade feels that it is being put upon in an unfair way.
Had the Minister put before us an Order of 12 months' duration for the amount asked for by the Commission, or, assuming that it is impossible to limit the period, if he had undertaken to bring forward a variation order next year, we should have had 12 months in which to

see whether the fears expressed by the meat trade were real. If they had proved to be real, at the expiration of 12 months, the Government could have brought forward an amending order.
My grievance is that, in the form in which the Government have put this Order forward, it is possible not only to go on for two years at the level that the Minister has indicated, but, under the existing Order, at a later stage it is possible to raise the levy to a higher level without the necessity of coming back to the House for verification and approval. By reason of the way in which this is being done, the House will not be given the automatic opportunity of considering the matter again. It worries us when power is given in a way which is claimed by one section of an industry to be unfair and we have no means of knowing whether we shall have an opportunity to put it right in another year.
If the Minister would give an undertaking to come back this time next year with an amending Order, that might change our attitude. But, as it is put forward, one section of the trade feels that it is being unfairly treated, and we cannot know whether or not those fears are justified. I do not feel that they will be in the event, but I know the fears are there, I know that the operation of the scheme will be affected, and I know that many people in the meat trade have uttered all sorts of threats about non-co-operation. In those circumstances, the Meat Commission will not have the opportunities that we all wanted it to have to get off to a good start.
We are not only concerned about the size of the levy, but about the power to raise it. When we part with the Order tonight, we have no power to bring it back to the House afresh.
It must not be forgotten that the attitude of traders is conditioned so much at present by the actions of the Government in other directions. When the Government impose levies on a section of the community, it has to be borne in mind that they have singled out the distributive trades for very harsh treatment.
For instance, Selective Employment Tax operates fully and completely on the distributive trades which


have no rebate of any kind. When investment allowances were withdrawn and investment grants were substituted for them, the distributive trades were far from getting any advantage from the change. If they are now to have this additional impost, they will regard an Order of this kind with greater criticism. We have to consider the totality of the effect of these things upon the trade. I do not think that the Minister has taken sufficient note of the genuine concern which has been expressed in this regard.
If there is to be a levy on home-produced meat, why is there not to be a levy on imported meat as well? This was an argument which I pressed in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor then told us that the Bill gave power for a levy to be imposed on imported meat, although he said that it was not his view that the Commission ought to place a levy on imported meat. However, if there were such a levy, the levy on home-killed meat would not have to be so high. It seems unfair to, our home meat producers to put a levy on them at a time when we are not imposing a levy on imported meat as well. There could be different rates of levy for imported and home-produced meat and the levy for imported meat might arguably be lower, but to eliminate the possibility of a levy on imported meat means that the impact of a levy on home producers is that much greater.
The Opposition are very unhappy about the way in which the Order is being brought forward. That does not mean that my colleagues and I are opposed to the Commission as such—we have always made it clear that we are not. Nor does it mean that we are opposed to the levy, or its level, particularly if account is taken of the fact that there is no levy on imported meat. We quarrel with the way in which the Order is brought forward and the fact that we shall not have an automatic opportunity in 12 months 10 discuss whether the fears of the meat trade have been justified and whether action has been taken to deal with them.
I ask the Minister for an assurance that, if the fears of the meat trade are shown to be well founded, he will introduce an amending Order. If he cannot give that assurance, the position will remain unsatisfactory. In that case, in

spite of what I have said about the Commission as a whole, I shall have to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to express their views in the Division Lobby.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: Like several other hon. Members, on both sides of the House, at the weekend I was approached by butchers in my constituency who put their case to me on this subject. Hearing it for the first time, I thought that they put it extremely persuasively. It was a case which has to be answered in the House, and I came to listen to the debate to hear what was said by the Minister and others with much more knowledge of this matter than I have.
My fears have not been allayed by what my right hon. Friend has said this evening. Nor were they allayed by what was said by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), who agreed with the Commission and with the levy and with the postponing of the raising of the levy, and who did not feel that the fears expressed by the butchers would materialise.

Mr. Godber: Mr. Godber  indicated assent.

Mr. Foot: I see the right hon. Gentleman nodding, I do not think that I have misrepresented what he says.
When I hear a speaker from this Front Bench praising the operation of market forces, and when I hear the right hon. Member for Grantham saying that we can leave everything to market forces, I become extremely suspicious. It is much better to try to leave it to some form of planning especially when we are operating a Commission which is intended to introduce a form of planning into this operation of the free market.
Speaking personally, I need a firmer explanation than has so far been given to persuade me that market forces will really settle this question, in a manner which is just to the butchers. My right hon. Friend says, and the right hon. Gentleman agrees, that no one can dispute that this is the most convenient way of raising the money. I would not attempt to dispute that at all. It is obvious that if one raises a levy of this kind from one place, it will be easy to raise it in that way than from two places. It will be easier to raise it from the trade than


through a division between the producer and the trade.
But because it is more convenient, it is not necessarily the right way of doing it. It may be an unjust way of doing it, and it certainly could leave the feeling of injustice, even if the actual injustice is not imposed. Therefore, I would ask my right hon. Friend to explain, if he wishes to have my vote at the end of the debate, whether there would be any substantial difficulty in dividing the levy between producer and butcher. I understand that when the Bill went through, and I am not an expert in these matters, the Minister of State said that this question would be considered. I would like to know why this has been rejected. If I am told that it has been rejected solely because it is inconvenient, I am not convinced. If I was told that it was impossible, then we have to examine that. That is not the Government's case. The Government do not say that it is impossible, but that it is more convenient. Supposing that it is slightly more expensive to raise it from the farmer as well as the butcher, there is still a good case for doing it.
I do not see why it should not be made certain that different sections of the industry which will benefit from this Commission should have their contributions to the Commission apportioned, by the decision of this House, rather than leave the matter to the haphazard course of what the market forces may eventually determine. The Government should not place such confidence in the market forces, particularly when the whole purpose of this operation is to introduce more order, more planning, in to the sale of meat. There may be a few hon. Members who are against this scheme, but the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that, officially, the Opposition are in favour of the Commission.
When we are trying to introduce a fresh form of planning into the system we have to make the plan fair. If it is unfair we will create opposition to the whole scheme. It would be most unfortunate if, when we set up a Commission which it is agreed on both sides of the House is for the benefit of the industry as a whole, we should arouse the hostility of one part to the Commission and its operations because of the way in which the levy works. If there is a convenient

way of getting out of that difficulty, the Government ought to reach it. I ask my right hon. Friend to look at this afresh and consider whether it is possible to have a different system of applying the levy.
As I understand, the levy will not be further increased, for the next two years at any rate, so there is some time. It is not as if we have to settle this matter forever tonight. It may be settled a bit later. It would be much wiser, in view of the feeling that has been aroused, if my right hon. Friend were to say that he will give fresh consideration to the view put by the butchers. It is one of the purposes of the House of Commons, that these matters should be represented. I know that my right hon. Friend can say that he has already had conversations with the butchers about this, but this is the place where these discussions are supposed to be heard.
I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will make an accommodating reply to the representations which have been fairly made to him on behalf of the butchers. I believe that if he does he will do it in the interests of the Commission and of ensuring that the Commission will be able to do the job which hon. Members, on both sides of the House, wish it to do.

11.55 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: It appears that the Minister has acted in this matter without any proper consultation with the trade, and it seems that the inevitable result will be more bureaucracy, which will serve no useful purpose. In view of the already efficient system of meat distribution in the trade, it can mean, in the end, only higher prices of meat to consumers.
The cost of collection of the levy will be outrageous. It has been the object of those in the trade to keep prices down, but they are being heavily penalised through Government action. Their overheads have been considerably increased over the past four years, due to the imposition of the Selective Employment Tax—increased taxation; heavier charges for National Insurance and graduated pensions—increased taxes; heavily increased transport changes—the nationalised industries; higher rates—increased


taxation; increased gas and electricity charges—the nationalised industries; and higher wages for employees as a result of inflation.
They are all feeling the pinch, and so are the customers, to such an extent that they are already encountering sales resistance and their sales of meat are decreasing, simply because the customer cannot afford to buy as much meat nowadays as he could in the old days of so-called Tory misrule.
The levy on carcase weight may seem small at 0·1d. per lb., but the result can mean only a substantial increase in charges which, in fairness to all sections of the trade, will have to be passed on 1o the customer. This will stem from the additional time spent in the grading and ticketing of meat at wholesale and retail levels.
The trade is being asked by the Government to keep prices down, and yet Government action is forcing prices up. The trade is anxious to keep its prices as low as possible and this additional burden, due to the proposed levy system, cannot be absorbed. That is why the trade ask for a square deal and, in the process, an endeavour to prevent further waste of public money on such senseless bureaucratic schemes.

12 m.

Mr. Derek Page: I was very pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) welcome the scheme, as I do. Indeed, I think that many hon. Members of this side will regret that the Commission will not have more powers than these. Certainly, the scheme has to be paid for, but the point I want to protest about—it has already been mentioned, but it needs covering a little more fully—is the fact that imported meat should bear its proper due.
Many of the functions of the Commission will be of help to the importers and to the producers, of course. Carcase classification will help marketing of imported meat, market information is bound to help importers just as it will our own producers, market development is bound to help them as well, and so will research, and it will help our competitors in increasing their efficiency abroad. In these circumstances, it is quite indefensible that the whole charge should fall on our home producers. Of

beef, 73 per cent. is produced at home, but of mutton only 438 per cent., and yet the whole of the charge is falling on those producers. This is plainly inequitable.
I would point out also that the effect of putting the charges purely on home carcases will be a reduction of the levies charged on imports. Imported carcases are charged at about 30s. per carcase, apart from those from Commonwealth countries. By putting the levy on our own carcases we reduce the import levy, which is bound to encourage imports, at a time when we should be doing exactly the opposite.
I would, therefore, ask my right hon. Friend to consider very carefully whether imported meat should not pay its proper due. If he wants my vote tonight I would certainly like to hear an undertaking from him that he will think this point over carefully.

12.2 a.m.

Mr. James Dance: I think that most of us, on both sides of the House, have butchers and their slaughterhouses in our constituencies. They feel, I believe rightly, that they are being discriminated against. They feel very strongly that while it is a good idea to have the Commission set up, the levy should be more widely spread, and not imposed on only one section of the industry.
The Farmer and Stockbreeder recently said:
The Government has thought it necessary for the livestock industry to have a co-ordinating and development body imposed upon it And Government could well be right.
I think we all agree about this.
But as the Commission is evolving, it seems only fair for the Government to pay direct for this work and not make it a charge on either side of the industry"—
I think that that is true—
to neither of which it seems likely on its present showing to be of much help.
Would it not be possible?
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) when he says this is the most economical and possibly the easiest way of collecting this levy, but is there not an easier one still? That is for the Government to put it in the February Price Review and let them pay for it. Would not that


make more sense? That would make it easier to collect. I do not think that it would be detrimental but much fairer to all of the agricultural industry.
I also believe that the cost of this exercise is far too high. For example, why have we got £50,000 for rent and equipment of the out of London offices in the first year, and why have we got £30,000 for general headquarters' expenses?
This is surely one further example of excessive Government expenditure on commissions and other forms of bureaucracy. I am in entire agreement—and I know my right hon. Friend also agrees —on the setting up of this particular Commission, but surely we must look at the expense of these various bodies set up by the present Government at a time when we are doing so much to take money out of people's pockets and increasing bureaucracy.
The burden of this levy, which I think is much' too high, should be more equally spread over the whole of the agricultural industry, and possibly the best way to do it is through the February Price Review. I would also like to see the cost of this Commission reduced quite considerably, because it is too high.
Finally, I would like to see this reviewed in the near future and not just allowed to go on expanding and expanding, thus making the levy more onerous for the whole of the agricultural industry.

12.7 a.m.

Mr. James Davidson: I should like, first, to get an assurance from the Minister that he has seen this report produced by the Meat Distributors' Action Committee, because I feel that if he has read it and seen the arguments in it it will save a great deal of time in this debate and save us from going over the same arguments.
May I have a nod from the Minister that he has read it? I see indications from the Front Bench opposite that this obviously has been seen, and so I can at least throw away one page of the short speech I had intended to make. The arguments are there in the report, and there is no point in repeating them over and over again.
Having studied with care the representations of the National Federation of

Meat Traders' Associations, I think many of their arguments are totally invalid. Some I agree with, and some I do not. There seem to be two completely separate points at issue. The first is whether a Meat and Livestock Commission is necessary at all, and the House has made its decision on this point in passing the relevant Section of the Agriculture Act.
I personally do not agree that a Meat and Livestock Commission in its present form is entirely desirable or necessary. I believe it has excessive powers, and yet the most essential power of all—some power to regulate imports—is missing. In this respect it seems to me like a horse with three legs. The other question—

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves his point about getting an assurance from the Government, would he bear in mind that at this late hour of the night a nodding head on the Government Front Bench can have two possible interpretations?

Mr. Davidson: Well, I am sure the whole House is very grateful for that most useful contribution to the debate.
The other major question is the way this levy is actually to be financed, and this is what has raised all the dust and caused all the complaints that have come to us through the post, and more directly through representations, in the last few weeks.
On the reluctant presumption that the Commission is necessary and that therefore a levy has to be raised somehow, is it unfair that it should be taken at the point of slaughter? In my view it is not unfair, since it will filter through the ramifications of the industry from the producer to the consumer. I cannot agree with the arguments which have been put forward by the meat trade that this is an unfair imposition and an unfair concentration on one section of the trade. As with every extra cost on an industry, it is bound to find its way through the industry to every section, to the farmer and to the housewife who buys her meat in a chain store, or wherever she goes for it.
If at the end of the debate the Order is voted on, my colleagues and I will go to the Lobby against the Government, and I will make clear the reasons why we shall be doing so. We are not convinced that the Meat and Livestock


Commission in its present form is desirable, particularly because it lacks powers of control or regulation over imports, and in this respect is an incomplete meat marketing commission. We are dissatisfied with its published programme of work. We are not persuaded that it will give value for money. If the Government persist with their intention to finance it in this way they should adopt the suggestion that has already been made in the course of the debate, that, rather than the money being taken at the point of sale, for the first year or two, in the nature of an experiment, it should be financed directly from the money provided by the farm price review in February, at least until every section of the industry from the farmer to the consumer is convinced that the Commission is giving value for money. When we are convinced that it is giving value for money, then we will be prepared to pay for it.

12.12 a.m.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I have had many protests from my constituents in Macclesfield and Congleton, and I am glad to follow the theme of the forceful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport), who is a constituent of mine. It is a monstrous situation that we should be asked to debate this subject after midnight. I have heard a rumour that there may be some other arrangement, but why did not the Leader of the House think of this earlier? He makes a face, but it is very bad administration and is not the way in which to run the House of Commons.
I am concerned about the amount of paperwork the slaughterer has to deal with day by day. The Government revels in handing on paperwork to all sections of the community. It is not surprising that we have had nearly 60,000 additional civil servants in the last 3½ years. The powers to raise the levy could have been taken in a different way, but the Government always say that this is a convenient way. S.E.T. is a convenient way, and that is being doubled in September. The butchers, amongst other members of the community, will have to bear that as well. Why is imported meat not included? Why should it be only home produced meat that is involved? The agricultural industry as a whole, and the

butchers, have a great deal to contend with. The debate last week did not take us very far. We were told by the Prime Minister in his famous broadcast after devaluation that there would be long-term planning in the agricultural industry, but we have had nothing but increased prices. No industry has been treated more shabbily than the agricultural industry in Great Britain.

Mr. Orme: Feather-bedding.

Sir A. V. Harvey: The only time the Labour Party makes a noise about agriculture is at General Elections. The Minister has had precious little support for the Order, even from his own side of the House, and he should look at this scheme again, for it is untidy and unworkable.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Angus Maude: I want to take up the question of the exception of imported meat from the levy. I have some sympathy with the Government in the problems they are facing on this issue. The main question facing the Government is how they are going to get the confidence of the agricultural industry for what they claim is a great appeal to it for import saving on a large scale in the present balance of payments difficulties. Over and over again, when speeches have been made by the Prime Minister and other Ministers, the appeals have been nullified by by what the industry regards as sabotaging moves in the opposite direction.
There have been complaints about imports of dairy produce, of new potatoes and so on, at exactly the time when we are trying to substitute home produce for imports. Now, at a time when there is a genuine disquiet about the size of the levy and the way it is levied, all imported meats are to be exempted.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) said that of course the method of collection proposed is the most convenient because it filters through to the consumer. It does on home produced meat but not on imported meat. The British meat industry is entitled to say that it is being put at a serious disadvantage.
I understand the difficulties with which the Government are faced, with


which any Labour Government are faced —and I am not trying to make a party political point—because it is difficult for a Labour Government, whose supporters represent largely urban areas and constituencies, to put any kind of taxes or levies on cheap imported food. We have always known this. But they cannot try to maintain this attitude convincingly while at the same time trying to get the agricultural industry to make a major effort for import substitution.
Either the Government really want to encourage the British agricultural industry to replace imported agricultural produce with home produced food or they do not. At the moment, the industry simply does not believe that the Government mean it. It is no good Ministers making speeches with high-falutin' appeals to the industry while this sort of thing happens, and this is a striking example of it.
The right hon. Gentleman must realise that not a single hon. Member from either side has expressed himself as satisfied with this Order and with the system he is bringing forward. He would be wise, if he wants to encourage and satisfy the food and agricultural industries, to make some conciliatory noises, take the Order away and look at it again.

12.20 a.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: The Minister is not having a warm reception for his Order. I hope he realises that one of the reasons behind the very strong opposition to the Order is the feeling that he is approaching saturation point with schemes of this kind. This is very keenly felt by the primary producers and their agents. To be honest, we have all contributed to this. In the sense that the right hon. Gentleman has only entered his Ministry recently, he is perhaps among the more blameless for the present state of affairs. But there is a general feeling that schemes of this kind are amounting to far too heavy an impost. In this case the right hon. Gentleman is vulnerable, because the impost will fall on one section, namely, the slaughterers and the butchers. As we have heard, the importers and the primary producers will be left out.
I know what lies behind the problem. Any levy applied to import prices

has an effect on the price to the consumer, it is always considered a very dangerous thing to impose a levy on imports which will affect the level of prices here. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman understands that the levy here will be passed on to the consumer. This is the inevitable consequence of a scheme of this kind. For the moment the slaughterers are appealing to their Members of Parliament to support them against an unfair levy. But they know, and I know, who will eventually pay. It will be the customer. We should be clear about that in discussing this Order tonight.
The arguments being levelled against the scheme are not—here I give the right hon. Gentleman a point—altogether rational. My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) accepted this. In terms of the 1967 Act, which is what we all agreed we wanted, there is in this Order a good deal of substance to which we have all subscribed. It is not altogether rational to oppose the particular proposal that the Minister brings tonight, but he is now facing the central core of resistance, which I must warn him will steadily increase, from the primary producers and others who reckon that they have had very nearly enough. One of the lessons we should learn from this Order is that the Minister has not yet had a single voice raised in warm support. The primary producers are not involved at the moment, but their agents, the slaughtermen, are, and they are up in arms.
I beg the Minister to realise that this will have to be the last scheme of its kind. I hope that hon. Members on this side, who have their own ideas about schemes of this kind, will accept it as well. There will have to be a limit on future imposts of this kind, both on the primary producers and their agents, or we shall have more trouble than we are having tonight.

12.23 a.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I hope that we shall not pass this Order tonight. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have second thoughts about it.
I agree with the idea of having a Meat Commission. I have always said that this is right. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber)


said, it is obviously necessary to have a charge for it. But I part from the Minister on the level of charges that he is making. Although the Minister has reduced what was originally asked for by the Commission, I do not believe that he is right to levy an extra leeway over and above what the Commission says that it will need for two years. I think that £1·85 million is more than is needed, including what will be needed for P.I.D.A. I believe that what will be needed for the extra amount of work that the Commission will be doing comes to less than £1·85 million. Therefore, I submit that it is asking for too much. I think that to give leeway over this is asking too much. That is my first point of disagreement.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I think that the hon. Gentleman said in addition to P.I.D.A., but P.I.D.A. is included in this sum and represents more than £1 million of it.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: If the hon. Gentleman was listening to what I was saying he would realise that what I said was that £1·85 million is more than is needed, including what will be needed for P.I.D.A. This is my first point. That is why I think that too much is being asked for. He is wrong also not to come back in a year or so and ask the House for more money or to reduce the levy, depending on how the Commission has got on. I have just as much confidence as the hon. Gentleman in the people who will run the Commission: that is not the point.
The next point which is wrong is to give the extra £600,000 after two years. The third point at which I part company with the right hon. Gentleman is that I think that this is the wrong way to collect the levy. I do not agree with my right hon. Friend that because the point of slaughter is the most convenient way, it will filter down. The Order says that the

slaughterer is entitled to recharge the amount of levy which he has to pay. How is he to apportion it? It will be done down the line. The local authority as well as the butcher is often the slaughterer, and this will certainly go down the line away from the producer to the customer at the far end: he will have to pay at the end of the day. It is not only the primary producer but the consumer who has had enough of these extra imposts on agriculture. As a result, the price of food is continually rising and the time has come to call a halt.
The Order should not be approved. As I said in Committee on the Bill there should be a charge on imports. We must remember that the Commission's activities in improving the tenderness, cutting up, presentation and marketing of meat can affect imports as much as the home producer, and it is wrong that the Order does not include a charge on imported meat. This is the gravest mistake of all. It need not be at the same level as that paid by the home producer, but it should be there. I repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) said: since the Minister is asking the farming community for increased production, particularly of livestock, and for import replacement, this is he wrong way to get their confidence. He will regret that he has brought the Order forward like this, unfairly framed and phrased as it is, and I beg him to take it away.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: We have made good progress in this debate and many other hon. Members still wish to speak. Although we have heard many interesting speeches, I would not agree with their argument, and in due course I think that I will satisfy hon. Members that their arguments have no validity. Nevertheless, I am anxious to hear a full debate. Therefore, I beg to move,

That the debate be now adjourned.

Question put and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

S.A.C. JOHN McKILLEN (DEATH)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. loan L. Evans.]

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Richard Buchanan (: I am very grateful for the opportunity afforded to me to raise the question of a pension for the father and mother of one of my constituents who was killed while on service with the R.A.F. overseas. The case concerns Senior Aircraftman John McKillen, who was the only son of a family of four, who joined the R.A.F. at the age of 24 in 1962, who in 1965 was posted to Germany and on 16th January, 1966, was killed while on service in Germany.
I notice that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is here, and I know his attitude in regard to such cases. He always views them with a most benevolent eye and helps where it is possible. I realise the straitjacket in which he finds himself about the decisions made in other places, but I would point out that at the time of his death S.A.C. McKillen was a Serviceman serving his country in a foreign land—I repeat; he was serving his country in a foreign land.
My appeal is based on this fact and the precedent which was created in the granting of a pension to the dependants of another unfortunate Senior Aircraftman whose name I have given to my hon. Friend and which I need not mention now.
On 16th January, 1966, Senior Aircraftman McKillen and a fellow Serviceman were making their way from the R.A.F. camp at Gutersloh, in West Germany, to a cafe, where the were intending to have a meal, when they were hit by an automobile driven by a German civilian. This German civilian has since been convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for driving whilst under the influence of alcohol.
I submit that the two Servicemen were injured—and S.A.C. McKillen subsequently died—as a direct result of being on service in Germany and of the illegal action of the German civilian. In this regard the case must be considered

in parallel with the case which I have already mentioned and others concerning Service men serving their country in other parts of the world—Service men at Cyprus and Aden—who may have been entering their personal sphere, off duty at the time and who, through the action of other civilians, or nationalists, or whatever one may call them, were injured, wounded or killed. The action of these foreign nationals has a direct bearing on whether or not the person concerned is entitled to a pension.
There is also the question of precedent. It is said that because S.A.C. McKillen was leaving the camp to go to a cafe he was entering his personal sphere and severing for the time being his Service connection. This is a line of officialese reasoning that I find very difficult to understand, especially when a precedent was created in the case of the other unfortunate S.A.C, who was killed a few hundred yards from camp in almost exactly the same circumstances but whose dependants were granted a pension because in going back to camp he was resuming his service—entering the official sphere.
I find it terribly difficult to understand why the dependants of one S.A.C. who was leaving his camp in a foreign country are denied a pension on the assumption that he was entering his personal sphere and severing his Service connection, whereas the parents of the other unfortunate S.A.C. received a pension because he was coming back to camp and therefore resuming his Service connection.
In the consideration of the appeal by Mr. McKillen senior, the Ministry quote the judgment of Mr. Justice Tucker in the case of Horsfall v the Ministry of Pensions, Volume I of the Selected War Pensions Appeals, page 7, but I cannot see the connection between this and the case now under consideration, because in the case of Horsfall v the Ministry the man died of a coronary thrombosis at the age of 53 after playing squash, and that happened in Britain.
In the second case, of Standen v the Ministry of Pensions, in Volume I, page 905, Mr. Justice Denning, as he then was, was against the applicant. This person was injured while cycling with his wife and had a three monthly sleeping-out pass. This does not compare with


the case which I am trying to put on behalf of S.A.C. McKillen's dependants. In the case of Standen v the Ministry, he was living almost permanently outside the camp with his wife, in private digs.
The case of Richards v the Ministry of Pensions, on page 631, before Mr. Justice Ormerod, was one in which a soldier was injured and was claiming a pension, but his injury was received in a brawl with a fellow soldier. I ask my hon. Friend to recognise that no matter how charitably I can view the cases under review, they bear no relation at all to the case of S.A.C. McKillen who was killed on service overseas by a native civilian who was subsequently convicted.
I would implore my hon. Friend, knowing the strait-jacket in which he is enclosed, to see that this case is reopened, if at all possible.
The only other step open to my constituent is to raise this case in the Court of Session, but the cost is completely beyond him. It runs to something like £200. I appeal to my hon. Friend to have some regard to the cases I have quoted. I do not think the Appeals Tribunal reviewed comparable cases, and I ask for this case to be reopened.

12.38 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Charles Loughlin): I want to thank my hon. Friend for the temperate way in which he has presented this case, because I know how strongly he feels about it, and perhaps it is a pity that I could not have afforded him satisfaction in this case after the way in which he has pursued it to the fullest extent possible to him as a Member of Parliament.
Before I discuss the claim to pension by S.A.C. McKillen's father, may I express my personal sympathy and that of the Minister with Mr. and Mrs. McKillen in the loss they suffered by the death of their only son at 24. Out of personal experience, I am fully aware of the sad blow this must have been, and if the Minister and I could have granted a pension we would have been only to happy to do so. Unfortunately, much as we sympathise, it is not within our power to do anything for Mr. and Mrs. McKillen by way of pension.
The pension claim had to be rejected because Senior Aircraftsman McKillen's death could not be accepted as due to service. The statement made by my hon. Friend shows that he is aware of this fact. The claim falls to be considered under the war pensions scheme. The primary condition under the scheme for any award of pension in respect of the death of a member of the Forces is that death was due to service. This fundamental principle of a casual connection with service is that basis of the difference between the war pensions scheme and other schemes and as such it is the justification for the various preferences enjoyed by war pensioners as compared with others.
There can accordingly be no question of a pension where death was not due to service. But it cannot be emphasised too strongly that my Ministry takes the most sympathetic view it can of any claims, and that the benefit of any reasonable doubt is given to the claimant. Nor does the Ministry have the last word. My hon. Friend referred to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. When we are unable to concede a claim, there is a right of appeal to the Tribunal. These Tribunals are completely independent of the Ministry, which has no hand in the nomination or appointment of members, nor in the running of the Tribunals. The Tribunals come within the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor.
When the Ministry did not find it possible to admit Mr. McKillen's claim in respect of the death of his son, he took his case to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. The Tribunal gave the case a very full hearing, adjourning it at one point for further inquiry on a point raised by Mr. McKillen's representative. Mr. McKillen was there in person. After hearing all the evidence and arguments, the Tribunal also reached the conclusion that S.A.C. McKillen's death was not due to service.
My hon. Friend spoke about the restrictions placed upon my right hon. Friend and myself. A Tribunal's decision is legally binding both on the appellant and the Ministry. It is only on a point of law that application can be made for leave to appeal against a Tribunal's decision—to the Court of Session in Scotland or the High Court in England.
My hon. Friend has given the bare bones of the facts, I will augment them


a little. S.A.C. McKillen met his death in a road accident while he was stationed with the R.A.F. in Germany. He was off duty at the time. His last spell of duty had ended at 0.800 hours on the Saturday, and he was not required to be on duty again until just after midday on the Monday. During this off-duty weekend, his time was his own to do what he liked in—naturally within the same bounds as apply to other citizens.
Some time late on the Sunday evening he and a friend decided to go out for a meal at a local cafe. They were walking along the road at about 11.00 p.m. when they were knocked down by a car. It was dark and they were wearing dark overcoats. They were not in uniform. Once the accident occurred, help was on the spot almost immediately, and there was no delay in getting them to hospital. S.A.C. McKillen was admitted within thirty minutes, but he died from his injuries two days later, despite all that the doctors could do. I can well understand what a shock the news of this must have been to his parents and their subsequent anxieties and grief.
But the circumstances of the accident clearly had nothing to do with any compulsion of service. S.A.C. McKillen was making his way from the camp to the cafe at that time, entirely because it suited his own purposes so to do. In walking along the road, any risks to which he was exposed were those to which any one else, civilian or Serviceman, doing the same thing was exposed. They were not Service risks. It was a public road and the car involved in the accident was driven by a civilian. The plain fact is that this was a road accident of the sort that could unfortunately happen to any of us at any time when we are innocently going about our own affairs.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend has sought to draw a parallel between this case and one in which a widow's pension was granted following the death of the husband in an off-duty road accident while serving in Germany. A case of this sort was quoted at the Tribunal hearing in support of Mr. McKillen's appeal. In our view, the circumstances of the other case quoted at the Tribunal and referred to by my hon. Friend, although superficially similar, differed in

significant respects from those of S.A.C. McKillen's case. As I have said, the Pensions Appeal Tribunal disallowed Mr. McKillen's appeal.
The implication of the Tribunal's decision cannot be other than that we were on firm ground in reaching the decision which we reached. In any event, as I said earlier, the Tribunal's decision means that there is no further action that the Ministry can take on Mr. McKillen's behalf. Perhaps I should explain that even had his son's death been due to service, it would not have been possible to pay him a pension. Under the War Pensions Scheme the condition that death was due to service is not the only one to be met before a parent's pension can be granted. A pension can be paid to a parent only if the parent is in financial need due to old age, infirmity or some other adverse circumstances. According to my information, this would not apply to Mr. McKillen.
We understand that he and his wife did receive some compensation for the death of their son as a result of legal action taken on their behalf by the Ministry of Defence against the driver of the car involved in the accident. I should, perhaps, make it clear that the compensation they received was very restricted, largely because of the German laws that applied when the case was heard in Germany. The compensation might have been more, but the court held that S.A.C. McKillen had to some degree been negligent, and his negligence was taken as a contributory cause of the accident.
But I can well believe that it is not the financial aspect that the parents are primarily interested in. I know they feel there would be some comfort, slight as it would be, if their son had died as a result of service.
I do not know what more I can say to S.A.C. McKillen's parents. We were proud of the lad's service record and we were proud of him. Unfortunately we cannot, under the regulations governing the War Pensions Scheme, concede the payment of a pension in this case.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to One o'clock.